Witte De With, a Name Contested

Witte de With, a Name Contested

Insights in the public debate about the historically charged name Witte de With

Master Thesis Student Name Lotte Takkenkamp Student Number 454217

Supervisor Pauwke Berkers

Date July 25th, 2019

Master Arts, Culture & Society Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication Erasmus University Rotterdam Witte de With, a Name Contested Insights in the public debate about the historically charged name Witte de With

ABSTRACT

Since February 2017, Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art in Rotterdam finds itself at the heart of a public debate. Due to a claimed blindness for its own historically charged name, an appeal was done for the institution to rename and no longer represent remnants of the Dutch history of expansion, colonialism and imperialism. The matter quickly evolved into a public discussion and therefore fits a broader range of public debates, aimed on rethinking history and the dominant position of the colonizer within writing the historical narrative. This research aimed to find answers to the question in what ways the name of Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art is contested in the Dutch media. Through the method of qualitative content analysis and an open coding technique, 132 new articles from Dutch newspapers and weekly news magazines were analysed in order to establish what frames are presented by the mediawriters to contest the name. This study found that there are three stands taken within this public debate: (1) ‘culture critics,’ in their role as iconoclasts, explicitly state that the name should no longer be used; (2) ‘culture guards, protecting the use of the name and aiming to maintain it; (3) ‘culture narrators’, who want to maintain the use of the name however, aim to create a more broad and nuanced awareness about its historical roots by changing the narrative. The data showed that these three positions, dominantly used three types of arguments to defend their point of view (1) historical arguments; (2) arguments of social critique; and (3) moral arguments. The content of these three frames is used interchangeable and therefore the construction of these frames does not happen in a vacuum. On the contrary, the three positions are rather rigid and appear to evoke fierce reactions

KEYWORDS: Decolonization, Heritage, Cultural conflict, Public sphere, Framing

Table of contents

1 Introduction ...... 5 2 Case description ‘Witte de With’ ...... 8 2.1 Historical elaboration ...... 8 3 Theoretical framework ...... 10 3.1 Colonization, decolonization and the Dutch Canon ...... 10 3.1.1 Colonization ...... 10 3.1.2 Decolonization ...... 11 3.2.3 The Dutch canon of decolonization ...... 12 3.2 Culture, heritage, identity and the nation ...... 13 3.2.1 Culture ...... 13 3.2.2 Heritage ...... 13 3.2.3 Identity ...... 14 3.2.4 National Identity ...... 15 3.3 Theory on cultural conflict ...... 17 3.3.1 Cultural conflict ...... 17 3.3.2 Populism in cultural conflict ...... 19 3.3.3. Activism, race and cultural conflict ...... 22 3.4 Public sphere ...... 22 3.5 Frames and the act of framing ...... 23 3.6 Traditional media ...... 24 3.6.1 Newspapers and weekly news magazines ...... 25 4 Data and methods ...... 27 4.1 Research context ...... 27 4.2 Method: qualitative content analysis of media coverage ...... 27 4.3 The sample & unit of analysis ...... 29 5 Results ...... 32 5.1. Developments within the public debate on the name of WdW ...... 32 5.2 Findings on the data set ...... 33 5.3 Findings through coding ...... 35 5.3.1 Historical arguments ...... 36 5.3.2 Arguments of social critique ...... 40 5.3.3 Moral arguments ...... 47

5.3.4 Other findings ...... 49 6 Conclusion and discussion ...... 52 6.1 Connection to literature ...... 54 6.2 Methods ...... 56 6.3 Contributions and further research ...... 57 Reference List ...... 58 Appendix A: Sample ...... 66 Appendix B: Codebook ...... 71 Appendix C: Distribution of arguments ...... 73 Appendix D: Translation of quotes ...... 74 Appendix E, Open letter to Witte de With ...... 83

We nemen `t anderen meer kwalijk dat zij onze fouten kennen, dan ons zelf dat wij daaraan mank gaan.

- Multatuli –

1 Introduction Since February 2017, Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art (WdW1) in Rotterdam has been a focal point for national public debates due to a possible name change. Criticism towards the meaning of the historically charged name was first expressed by the project group ‘Cinema Olanda’, which is an extension of the exhibition in the Dutch pavilion at the 57th Venice Biennale. By means of an open letter, Cinema Olanda claimed the name to be a remnant of the horrors of colonialism and a representation of power inequalities in relation to the white subject position within Dutch society. In this sense, the name is considered to be a symbol for glorification of the dominant historical narrative discourse of the Dutch, which undermines the dimension of the suppressed. Even though the critique is directed at WdW, the project group claims that “it extends well beyond this institution’s white walls”, as it also concerns society as a whole and other cultural institutions within (Martine, Sno, Warsame, Schor, Alhaag, Guggenbickler). In response, WdW openly re-evaluated its own name, which caused the media to pick up upon the considerations of the institute. Once entered the public sphere, two polarized opinions seem to dominate the debate. On the one hand, the opinion that the name should change in order to provide a more inclusive and nuanced perception on history, by not solely representing the dominant Dutch historical narrative. On the other hand, the opinion to maintain the name, as it is considered as a representative of Dutch history and culture which by no means should be wiped out. Causing the Dutch identity being contested and negotiated through fierce public discussions. The WdW discussion and its polarised character fit a broader range of analogous debates and events. For instance: the taking down of statues and monuments that represent rulers of the former colonies, the Black Pete discussion, or the criticism on the ownership and presentation of colonial remnants within the museum sector. Even though they might argue upon different grounds (e.g. equality, [socio]political, religious), in essence these matters contest the same: should history or culture be revised, or not? These core issues lead to reassessment of who and what is involved in the process of ‘making’ heritage, and how it should be shaped and presented in contemporary societies (Harrison, 2013 p. 32). Regardless the outcome of these specific discussions, the fact that these cultural assets are contested, means that a process of negotiation and collective re-evaluation has already started. Hence, historical homages such as in the case of the name ‘Witte de With’, are at the core of these cultural conflicts. Media are a dominant within this process of collective re-evaluation, as it is one of the main distributors of knowledge and within this process constructs, provides and maintains mental frames (Lynn & Lea, 2003). Frames (and frameworks) are "schemata of interpretation that enable individuals to locate, perceive, identity, and label" events and objects that people directly or indirectly experience or perceive

1 Throughout this study, the term ‘WdW’ will refer to Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art. When making statementsabout the street or district with the name ‘Witte de With’, the full name will be presented. The persona Witte de With will be referred to by his full name: Witte Corneliszoon de With. 5

(Snow, Rochford, Worden & Benford, 1986, p. 464). Media are involved in the social construction of these cultural conflicts. And at the same time, consciously or unconsciously, also aim at what resonates among its audiences (Binder, 2016). Within media, newspapers and journalists have considerable power to select what they present as news to their readers (Smith et al., 2002). Additionally, due to this power position, people rather quickly internalize the transmitted information as a ‘truth’ or ‘fact’. Hence, in public debates on cultural change, media is extremely powerful through the influence is has by using frames (Lynn & Lea, 2003). Cultural change forces people to rethink their language, symbols and traditions. The movement against the name use of Witte de With, is part of a wider drive to rethink national culture and history. Within The Netherlands, cultural conflicts about cultural change in relation to the Dutch historical narrative, receive media attention to a great extent. This study set out to investigate in what ways the name is contested by examining how newspaper articles framed the discussion. The following research question therefore guided this research: in what ways is the name of Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art contested in the media? The research is relevant in several ways. To begin with, it contributes to examination of the renewed attention for the position of the Dutch in colonial history and processes of decolonisation of society (Duara, 2004). In addition, dominant white subject positions within Dutch society are claimed to have caused ‘black pages’ in history. The increased appeal to shed light on these counter-hegemonic, fit a broader rise of antiracism and fighting contemporary forms of white privilege (Wekker, 2016). These processes are strongly intertwined with the issues of power relations and inequalities. In relation to these processes, there is a growing body of literature which recognises the importance of monitoring who speaks and who is allowed to speak in the public sphere (Bruns & Highfield, 2015; Gripsrud, Moe, Molander & Murdock, 2010; Hartley and Green, 2006; Reese & Shoemaker, 2016). Additionally, power relations within media are a central concern in media, for example between distributors, companies and consumers (Carragee & Roefs, 2004; Hall 1982). Examining the effect of the pivotal role of prominent people and institutions on the development of these public debates, is important as it exposes underlying systems of power as a social construct. The current research contributes to creating a contextual image of how these subjects and processes are socially constructed within The Netherlands and how these issues develop. The scientific relevance of this research lies in the fact that it contributes to the small amount of research that still exists on cultural conflicts such as the Witte de With debate. This research was conducted through a qualitative content analysis of 132 news articles from Dutch newspapers and weekly news magazines, gathered through LExisNExis. The current thesis has been divided into four parts: it will start out with a brief contextualization of the WdW case, and present the theoretical framework to elaborate on its key concepts. After, the data and methods of this research are presented. Besides, an extensive elaboration on the sample and the developments within the public

6 debate on the name of WdW, will contribute to a better understanding of the findings that follow. After the findings, the conclusions of the current research and further points of discussion are presented.

2 Case description ‘Witte de With’ The Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art (WdW) is to be found in the city center of Rotterdam. Founded in 1990, it was named after the street on which it is still located, the Witte de Withstreet (Hernández Chong Cuy, n.d.). Both the street itself, and its surroundings (the Witte de Withdistrict), nowadays are occupied with bars, unique shops and cultural hubs. It represents an important part of the cultural identity of the city of Rotterdam. The mission of the contemporary art institution fits this environment as its aim is “to present and discuss the work created today by visual artists and cultural makers, from here and afar. [...] who are interested in posing challenging inquiries and articulations of our present. While its program considers the contemporary, it also regards how art has been created and experienced in the past, and it imagines the futures art can come to shape” (Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art, n.d.). WdW aims to achieve this mission by organizing exhibitions, commissioning art, publishing, developing educational programmes and collaborative initiatives. It is a non-profit institution which in its programs and cooperations, has a clear focus on posing challenging inquiries and articulations of our present, past and future (Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art, n.d.; 2017). Public controversy surrounding its name, started February 2017, when WdW launched the project ‘Cinema Olanda: Platform’, a cooperation with artist Wendelien van Oldenborgh and curator Lucy Cotter in preparation to the Venice Biennale. The overall aim of Cinema Olanda, was: to expose neglected parts of recent post-colonial history, to address the active and collective forgetting of the colonial past, and to contribute to a new national self-image. These intentions of Cinema Olanda were in line with the previous stated mission of WdW, as it aimed at reflection on (the construction of) culture and its underlying social processes. The cooperation resulted in an exhibition, which presented an ongoing process of development and therefore constantly evolved. The first meeting of the project, led to a dialogue about the awareness of the historically charged name of the art center (van Lieshout, n.d.).

2.1 Historical elaboration Witte Corneliszoon de With (1599-1658) was one of the well-known naval officers working for the VOC (Dutch United East India Company, established in 1602) and WIC (Dutch West India Company, established in 1621) between 1616 and 1651 (Slagmaat-Bos, n.d.). With the VOC and WIC, the States General of the Dutch Republic aimed to achieve their binary goals of: on one hand, overseas expansion of trade outside Europe, in order to improve and remain their trading position on the European market; while on the other hand, the purpose was to decrease the dominant position in politics and trade of the Iberian 'archenemy', which existed of Spain and Portugal, in order to develop own dominance. Both companies had the Dutch exclusive right to maintain trade routes outside the borders of Europe. Besides, they were allowed to fully act in name of the Dutch state, which permitted them to establish international treaties and to perform

8 military acts on their own initiative. However, still with strong ties to the organizational structure in the motherland (Knaap, 2014; 2015). The acts of the VOC and WIC overseas, were fundamentally different from what happened in the Dutch republic. In the homeland, the reputation of the companies was based upon the marked glory of trade, which brought great wealth. Whereas, outside Europe, the actual performances and accomplishments were acts of colonialism. The majority of Dutch actors overseas, consisted of soldiers and militarized sailors who acted on orders from the motherland mainly to expand the (maritime) imperium. Furthermore, merchants were more concerned with the administration than with the commerce (Butt, 2013; Horvath, 1972; Knaap 2014; 2015; Loomba, 1998). Hence, when critically evaluating the practices of the VOC and WIC outside of Europe, it can be stated that their successes in trade in fact were established through military acts and financing, executed under the guise of commercial benefits (Knaap, 2014; 2015). Besides, there are other significant issues to take into consideration when evaluating the VOC and WIC successes. They were, for example, the result of a political and economic game during the birth of the Republic and the Eighty Years' War against Spain. Because of these political and economic dimensions, the acts and intentions of the VOC and WIC cannot solely be understood as apolitical trading skills of virtuous entrepreneurs (Knaap, 2015). The so-called ‘golden era’, covers most of the time span in which the VOC and WIC acted. For a long time, people considered this a time period of wealth and glory, a time in which trade, science and the arts flourished, and the nation was leading in (international) politics and military power. To many people, the glorious endeavour and victories of the powerful VOC and WIC became representative for this time period. However, leaving out the negative aspects of history, causing to truncate history for the sake of telling a linear story of progress. This one sided approach to the historical story, which was in line with how people back in the motherland perceived the situation, was still the dominant perception on this part of history until the early 90s. Since the separation of the Dutch colonies from the former metropolis, this vision started to change slowly. Postcolonial migration caused perceptions on historical acts, such as colonialism, to merge. Additionally, over time the distance from the acts of colonisation increased, which led to more room for detachment and analysis. Hence, the perception on these historical events, started to change from ‘innocent’ historical acts/happenings interpreted through the logic of politics or trade, towards a more reflective and nuanced view, inclusive towards the ‘non-Dutch’ experience (Duara, 2004; de Beus, 2001; Raben, 2013). It is exactly the essence of this development and change in narrative that was touched upon by the project of Cinema Olanda, as they claimed a critical re-evaluation of the historically charged name of the institution. In order to provide a foundation for the empirical part of this research, the following chapter, will elaborate extensively on the concepts of: the underlying processes of colonization and decolonization; culture, heritage and identity; cultural conflict, populism and race issues; public sphere and framing and the role of media.

3 Theoretical framework The controversy as a result of the call for a critical re-evaluation of the historically charged name of WdW, is related to different spheres which are fundamental to this study. Not only is the historical meaning of the name contested, the boundaries of this specific case are expanded, as it is considered to be a representative for/part of a broader tendency to collectively re-evaluate Dutch national and cultural identity and heritage (Helsloot, 2009; 2012; Hilhorst & Hermes, 2016; van Reekum, 2016). Hence, participating to the WdW debate, is an indirect reference to these overarching sociological debates. Furthermore, the notion of ‘public sphere’ will be contextualized, also takin into consideration the role of media and framing.

3.1 Colonization, decolonization and the Dutch Canon Colonialization and imperialism have been part of human history for ages. Some people might even argue that the history of colonialization, is the history of human kind itself. For a long time colonial discourses were not questioned at a broader European level, as they were simply considered as part of political and national agenda’s (Baehr, 2008; Chong, 2009). However, since the 1990’s a renewed attention for these processes of decolonization caused fierce debates on cultural change, either aiming for equality or preservation of cultural heritage.

3.1.1 Colonization In general, colonization is characterized by a form of intergroup domination in which the dominant group, the colonizers, migrate with a significant amount of people to the colony, with the aim of economic gain or cultural change. Mostly accompanied with (cultural) imposition and suppression and forms of exploitation of the colonized (e.g. exploitation of labour and services, economical or material resources) (Butt, 2013; Horvath, 1972; Loomba, 1998). In general, three types of colonial relations can be identified. In the most extreme form, so called extermination, the colonized is exterminated by the colonizers. The second type, assimilation, refers to a relationship between colonizer and colonized in which cultural elements of both parties become merged through shared lives. The colonizers are still in control however an environment is created in which both parties live together and culture is adopted instead of overruling the colonized completely. The final type of relation, is colonization in which members of both groups live next to each other and the colonizer neither exterminates nor assimilates the colonized (Horvath, 1972). Motives for acts of colonialism lie in gaining profits and economic growth for the colonizers (Strang, 1991). As one can imagine, the effects of colonization can be extensive on different levels of society and throughout time. For example on a micro level, colonized people cope with the effects of discourses of colonization, even when generations have past. The same goes for nation states and international relations, as countries struggle with and argue over historical events. Hence, the effects of colonization are intergenerational, which means that even when countries are no longer involved in the practices of 10 colonialism, related issues and lasting effects can still be very relevant (Butt, 2013; Paasman, 2002; Ypi, Goodin & Barry, 2009). The meaning and valuation of colonialism changed throughout time and context and therefore is a changing process and a social construct. Within this process, its definition can be modified or rejected when it is no longer meaningful or applicable (Loomba, 1998; Strang 1991). The Dutch contemporary society seems to be confronted with exactly this process, as the valuation of the concept of colonialism has changed over time and resulted in an increasing awareness of its meaning and underlying social processes of construction (Butt, 2013; Ypi, Goodin & Barry, 2009). This relates to the social process of decolonization, which very literally taken entails the process of undoing of colonization. An example in which this is clearly reflected, is the persistent claim by Indonesian people to have justification and recognition for the acts of the Dutch during the Indonesian-war (1945-1950) in the Dutch-Indonesian colony. Since 1969, the official government position of the Dutch is that, the armed forces as a whole have behaved correctly in Indonesia. Nevertheless, Indonesians claim the opposite, as they experience the remnants in terms of social difficulties, causing intergenerational trauma for individuals, families, and communities. A first step to recognition of these effects and a change in perception of this clean narrative by the Dutch officials, is officially initiated by opening a large-scale investigation, subsidized by the Dutch government (Indonesie, 1945-1950, n.d.; Ministerie van buitenlandse zaken, 2017).

3.1.2 Decolonization The previous example also touches upon processes of decolonization, “whereby colonial powers transferred institutional and legal control over their territories and dependencies to indigenously based, formally sovereign people” (Duara, 2004, p. 2). However, as the consequences of colonisation remain apparent in societies whose past their colonial times, the concept of decolonization is wider than the formal process of winning independence of the colonised. Colonial expansion has changed the world political, economic, demographic, geographic, ecological, ideological and culturally. Moreover, it leaves its traces with human existence through acts of cultural imposition, exploitation, suppression and herewith dehumanises and objectifies people. Therefore, it takes a lot more than just separation of land (Césaire, 2001; Paasman, 2002). Decolonisation is about processes of rethinking fundamentals, regaining straight, analysing what happened, exploring dreams and finding compromises (Shepard, 2015). Decolonizing can be recognised “as a long-term process involving the bureaucratic, cultural, linguistic and psychological divesting of colonial power” (Tuhiwai-Smith, 2006, p. 98). Arguments pro-decolonization awareness (e.g. coming from indigenous people, critical historians and postcolonialism perspective) state that history is important for understanding the present and that reclaiming history is a critical and essential aspect of decolonization. Thereby, they aim to broaden the singular historical/narrative perspective as often created by the previous colonizers. Additionally they intent to accept an inclusive

11 approach through for example reach acknowledgement of the effects of colonization discourses are of great importance (Harrison, 2012; Tuhiwai-Smith, 2006).

3.2.3 The Dutch canon of decolonization The remnants of the horrors of colonial histories are deeply rooted among its descendants, however have been marginal for a long time in the historic canons of involved countries (Oostindie, 2007). Until 40 years ago, Dutch colonial history was mainly reviewed through a narrative perspective, mere as historical happenings and considered as ‘innocent’ through political logic. However, after the separation of the colonies from the former metropolises, postcolonial migrants moved to their motherlands and experience in relation to colonialism got merged. Besides, over time the distance from the acts of colonisation increased, which led to more room for detachment and analysis. Hence, the conceptions of colonialism started to change. The initial reaction to this process of changing perception, was a focus on the autonomous histories of the colonized indigenous people and on pernicious effects of colonial suppression. The transformation of the interpretation of the colonial processes, in the 1990s also caused innovative ways of (narrative) writing about imperial histories (Duara, 2004, Beus de, 2001; Raben, 2013). This changing perception of the colonial aggrandisement caused a critical view to the past but also to the “taken for granted” within Dutch cultural performances. Nevertheless, even in contemporary times where there is an increasing awareness of our acts from the past, the ages of Dutch colonial expansion can be labelled as a silenced part of Dutch history (Jones, 2012). This attention for rethinking history and criticizing the dominant position of the colonizer within writing the historical narrative, is clearly reflected in the Witte de With debate. In this case colonial remnants which glorify specific elements of the Dutch history are being challenged by criticizing historical acts and contemporary attitudes towards this history. Additionally, the polarised character of the Witte de With debate, could originate from a different interpretation when reading situations of colonization (Butt, 2013). There seems to be a clear opposition in approach between on one hand people who fundamentally think that decolonialisation is positive for the wellbeing of societies. And on the other hand, people who are explicitly critical towards the intention and effects of the process of decolonialization. Acts of the primer approach of decolonization, often are rooted in a feeling for the need for justification and equality (Harrison, 2012; Ypi, Goodin & Barry, 2009). Whereas the latter seems to be more related to protecting contemporary forms of social practices of culture, like language and the use of symbols and traditions. Besides these two manners of approach to decolonization, ignorance of the issue can also be considered a form of taking a stand within the discussion (Butt, 2013).

3.2 Culture, heritage, identity and the nation 3.2.1 Culture As explained earlier, the attention for rethinking history and the dominant position of the colonizer within writing the historical narrative, is clearly reflected in the Witte de With debate. Through this debate the position of the Dutch in regard to historical act is questioned, both in history and contemporary times. Criticising this, directly and indirectly is a critique on the manner in which people interpret and use their own history, culture and heritage. “Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behaviour acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiment in artefacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other, as conditional elements of future action” (Kroeber & Kluckhohn 1952, as cited in Spencer-Oatey, 2012, p. 2). Culture simultaneously has the power to connect and differentiate people. It is the common ground upon which people stand, as it gives a shared uniqueness to a group of people and therefore has an inclusive effect (Geertz, 1973; Schein, 1983). Nevertheless, even when people share a common identity and have a clear understanding of what is shared, it does certainly not mean that these people also equally value the parts of the content or act the same. Therefore it is important to note that people within a cultural group do not uniformly act based upon culture (Ross, 2009). Besides, people that consider themselves as connected in one context, may see themselves as distinct in another (Murer, 2012). For example, on a national level according to one’s country people might feel as a unity as they share certain cultural content based upon their geographical location. However, when these people do not share specific elements that are fundamental to identity (e.g. gender, generation, or social class), these people possibly divide into subcategories that draw boundaries within the overarching national cultural group. Hence, subcultures and differences within cultural groups are established (Matsumoto & Juang, 2013, p. 1-34; Verkuyten & Yogeeswaran, 2017). Culture is also used to distinct and create boundaries, for example based on ethnic grounds or to maintain power positions (Avruch, 2009; Geertz, 1973; Meyerson & Martin, 1987; Schein, 1983). This is a dual process of self-ascription and collective recognition in which the cultural content often appears to matter less than the value of connecting or differentiating. Moreover, it also shows that culture is both a social and an individual construct (Avruch, 1998, p. 5-6; Matsumoto & Juang, 2013, p. 1-34).

3.2.2 Heritage Traditionally, heritage is seen as the representation and maintaining of cultural objects and behaviour of the past, in the present. As cultural elements, heritage is the tangible and intangible products, ranging from: the solid and material objects such as buildings, monuments and memorials; to the ethereal aspects originating from human acts, such as songs, festivities and languages. Over time these objects and acts became highly valued and/or perceived as endangered, and therefore are further maintained, produced 13 and presented by individuals, and a large variety of institutions and collectives. The processes of heritagization are guided by institutionalization and museumification (Harrison, 2013, p. 1-41). However, contemporary processes of modernization, industrialization, urbanization, and globalization have heavily influenced the existence of local cultural contexts. These developments cause cultural loss and homogenization. In response, cultural symbols and practices are safeguarded, and processes of heritagization are initiated (Nagy-Sándor & Berkers, 2018). In this sense, heritage is not solely alive in the past and honoured in the present, “it is a mode of cultural production in the present that has recourse to the past” (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1998: 150, as cited in Nagy-Sándor & Berkers, 2018). Hence, the notion of heritage emphasises a nation’s relationship to culture, history and its processes of construction. Simultaneously stresses its connection with the present and the future. Therefore, studying heritage is studying the values of today’s societies (Harrison, 2013, p. 1-41). In case of the Witte de With debate, not just the item of cultural heritage is criticized, also the contemporary social practices of maintaining and constricting heritage are questioned. The discussion emphasises its contemporary underlying social structures, and the great value culture bares to individuals as it brings forward why and what cultural and historical elements people want to maintain (or not). Hence, it addresses what specific elements of culture and history are prioritised by practitioners. Additionally, the Witte de With case shows the (recognised) dominant influence of colonizers as stakeholders within the process of constructing and continuation heritage. With this it shuts light on power relations within contemporary Dutch Society (Harrison, 2013; Nagy-Sándor & Berkers, 2018).

3.2.3 Identity Culture and heritage are closely connected to the notion of ‘identity’, as they both shape identity through socialization (Avruch 2009). Identity consist of the characteristics determining who or what a person or thing is. The use of identity of people in contemporary times, knows two interacting dimensions. The first, is termed ‘social’ and refers to being part of a social group as a category. It is deﬁned by membership rules and (alleged) characteristic attributes or expected behaviors. Hence, it is the shared identity based upon shared culture and history. The second, contains the distinguishing characteristic (or characteristics) that a person takes a special pride in or views as socially consequential but more-or-less unchangeable. Identity in this sense is called ‘personal’ (Fearon, 1999). Identities are a continuity of these features that make social and personal identity, and at the same time are in constant transformation due to internal changes and external forces. Nevertheless, all individual choices and expressions “always implicate[s] the positions from which we speak or write – the positions of enunciation” (Hall, 1990, p. 222). These positions are time and place related and in case of the Witte de With debate, are connected to the Dutch worldview during the golden era, and in contemporary times. In addition, construction of identity is strongly influenced by traditional social structures such as family, schools or religious affiliations (Byrnes,

2015). The ‘group identity lens’ theory, argues that when a particular social identity is dominant, it provides a ‘lens’ through which individuals perceive and interpret the world. Group identity functions as a group lens that makes people sensitive to anything that concerns or could harm the group existence. Therefore, the more someone identifies with a group and its ‘applied lens’, the more one can experience a feeling of threat, which can lead to specific responses (Verkuyten, 2009). As previously stated, cultural change forces people to rethink their cultural symbols and behaviour. Contemporary global processes, such as globalisation or mass-migration, stimulate cultural change by increasing the interconnectedness of people and cultures. However these processes complicate with the continuation of shared experiences and collective beliefs. Hence, the social and cultural element of identity is challenged even more, causing an increased awareness of ‘the self’ and ‘the other’ and the lenses used by these groups (Fearon, 1999; Lynn and Lea, 2013; Spencer-Oatey, 2012; Verkuyten, 2009). Remarkably, is that this sense of connectedness, can be maintained without direct contact. This is emphasised by Benedict Anderson in his notion of the ‘imagined community’ (2006). He stresses that communities of which its members cannot possibly know one another can still feel strongly connected to each other. Based upon shared culture, norms and values, a mental image of affinity with the community is established, causing the experience of a mutual bond which Anderson calls ‘imagined’. This process for example, happens on a national level, where people will never be able to directly be in contact with all inhabitants of a country, but still feel like a strong unity (e.g. expressed during international sport competitions). In order to establish a sense of shared identity, it is argued that a collective awareness and interpretation of historical events and experiences are required. As these elements formed the group over time, they constitute a feeling of togetherness and solidarity, which are essential to any group identity, specifically national identity and national cohesion. Hence processes of collective remembering are crucial to national identity (McDowell, 2016; Wang & Jia, 2015).

3.2.4 National Identity National identity is derived from the complex relationship between citizens and their country value systems, which are established through the following elements of historical traditions and backgrounds: (1) peoples religious past, (2) peoples territorial past, (3) peoples political past, (4) peoples history of war, (5) peoples industrial and economic past, and (6) peoples cultural past. Additionally, language also plays a role in the establishment of nationality. Altogether, nationality can be defined as: “a cultural group of people who speak a common language (or closely related dialects) and who possess a community of historical traditions (religious, territorial, political, military, economic, artistic and intellectual)” (Hayes, 2016, p. 5). Despite all these components which constitute national identity, some people argue that modern societies can no longer be described as ‘nation-states’ in which the political realm, the state, wraps itself in the cultural concept of the nation, such that the two become coterminous. Hence, the

15 conventional concept of a shared ‘national identity’ holds no longer as it seems to belong to different realms: the political and cultural respectively (Bechhofer & McCrone, 2009). The concept of national identity evokes different responses with people, as they identify themselves differently and to different elements in relation to their nation state. It is argued that the categorization of the individual process of national identification is important as it provides a foundation for understanding how native people respond and react to ‘that what is different’ and changes in relation to national elements. Studies have shown that the manner of national identification, has the potential to impact individuals’ stances towards for example ethnic minorities, immigrants or cultural change (Verkuyten, 2009; Sarrasin, Green & Fasel, 2016). Citizens’ connections to their nation can be described as ranging on a continuum from absolutely indifferent (and uncritical), to highly connected (and critical) (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, Halevy, & Eidelson, 2008). To feel highly connected to the motherland can be considered as patriotism. Within patriotism, a distinction can be made between a ‘blind’ and ‘constructive’ form. Both are characterized by a close emotional bond experienced by the individual towards the nation. Yet, blind patriotism can be identified when people show an unquestioning and uncritical loyalty to the nation and its acts. Whereas constructive patriotism is characterized by a critical loyalty to the nation, accompanied by the desire to change its criticized aspects (out of love for the nation) (Sarrasin, Green & Fasel, 2016). Research on these two forms of patriotism, has established that constructivist patriotists tend to express the strongest support for national inclusion of (new) minority groups and opinions. Therefore, they are expected to be open to cultural change and inclusivity, with the overall aim to have a positive contribution to the nation. On the other end of the spectrum, people who are strongly attached to the nation without questioning its (past) actions, incline to express strong resistance towards the inclusion of (new) minority groups and opinions, and therefore are expected to be unwilling to accept cultural change and adaptation (Sarrasin, Green & Fasel, 2016). Often a connection is made from an open or closed attitude towards (new) minority groups and opinions, to certain political ideologies (which are opinions on how the world and society should be organized). It is now well established from a variety of studies, that people with a conservative political ideology, more often and act upon blind patriotism. This implies that holding critical views towards ones nation, may actually be key for developing open attitudes towards (new) minority groups and opinions (Verkuyten, 2009). In the Witte de With case it is expected that national identity, of which the use of the name Witte de With is seen as an element, evokes different responses due to different relations with the Dutch nation state. Besides, the division between people who emphasis either the political or the cultural components of national identity, could be mirrored by the positions taken within the debate.

3.3 Theory on cultural conflict 3.3.1 Cultural conflict Avruch (2009, p. 45) argues that “conflict is the competition by individuals or groups over incompatible goals, which are determined by an individual’s perception of these goals”. Hence, conflict not only is to be found within contradicting goals or in a contested subject, but also within the context and the cognitive and perceptual inconsistencies that lie behind these goals and/or subjects. Developing understanding of a conflict by both participants and analysts, happens through the mental processes of categorization and framing, processes which are highly influenced by cultural backgrounds. Hence, culture shapes the way in which conflicts are interpreted (Brubaker & Laitin, 1998; Murer, 2012). ‘Cultural conflict’ can be understood as a conflict that arises between parties that are separated by cultural boundaries, as the assets of one cultural group represent a challenge to individuals of another (Berns & Atran, 2012). As previously stressed, culture is an existential matter, as it touches upon essential aspects of the existence of people. As this manifests on many different levels (from ideology to behaviour), cultural conflict simultaneously occurs in different degrees. Cultural conflicts for example, are highly entangled with problems of intercultural communication and misunderstandings, which stresses both the daily practices of culture, and a deeper connection to identity (Avruch, 2009; Hall, 1980; West, 1990). In addition to conflicts across cultural groups, cultural conflict can also arise within cultural groups, due to for example the friction as a result of individual differences, established by the degree in which people adopt and engage in (Matsumoto & Juang, 2013, p. 1-34). Taking in consideration that the more complex and differentiated a society is, the more potential groupings can develop which increases possible friction between groups. Meaning that conflict across cultural boundaries may occur simultaneously at many different levels (Avruch, 2009; Spencer-Oatey, 2012). Nevertheless, cultural conflict is considered to be universal, in a way that every cultural group has conflicts and needs to resolve them. However, methods on how to deal with conflict, are unique to particular groups. They are manifested in behaviour, beliefs and values and - like culture itself – have an evolving character which is not set (Murer, 2012; Schneider & Barsoux, 2003). Two commonly taken positions when approaching cultural conflict, are the perspectives of ‘Realism’ and ‘Constructivism’. Even though they are not fully comprehensive to situations of cultural conflict, they both present a clear view on how conflict can arise between cultural groups and provide tools for analysation. The constructivist approach relates to the previous presented definition of cultural conflict, as it analyses a situation of conflict through divergent perceptions or beliefs about the nature of the situation or the involved (groups of) people. Whereas through realism, ‘power’ is considered to be the motor for conflict, which also defines how people or groups act. The focus on the notion of power by this second approach is very relevant as it is inherent to situations of conflict and emphasises and clarifies the relational discourses (e.g. Who/what fills the dominant/underdog positions? And how does this for example influence negotiation processes) (Avruch, 2009). In general it can be said, that when

17 analysing cultural conflict, a clear overview should be established of both the objective bases of the conflict (such as factual happenings and events), and the participants (inter)subjective understandings of the conflict (reflecting the context and underlying cultural and metal processes). When aiming for conflict resolution, it is in the “space” between the objective and the subjective areas, that an effective conflict resolution finds place (Avruch, 2009; Murer, 2012). Within the context of this research, cultural conflict is evoked as a coalition between minority groups and ideological supporters, challenge the existing social and cultural structure of the Dutch nation, and thereby question national unity and cohesion as it touches upon essential matters of (national) identity. As presented before, the findings of previous studies suggest that this could raise fear for multiculturalism, minority groups, opinion and rights, and immigration, as it is feared that they will override a native culture and way of life (Kauff, Asbrock, Thorner, Wagner, 2013; Verkuyten, 2008; Sarrasin, Green & Fasel, 2016; Triandafyllidou, 2000).

3.3.1.a Conflict over Dutch culture As mentioned before, the public debate concerning the name change of WdW, can be placed within a range of similar public debates aiming at what it perceived as wrong with Dutch society and society in general. Probably the most active public debate in The Netherlands, is the discussion concerning the appearance of Black Pete (Zwarte Piet). Black Pete is the helper of Saint Nicholas (Sinterklaas), to whom a national holiday is contributed on the 5th of December. The contemporary Dutch celebration is based on the historical story of the Catholic bishop Saint Nicholas, and dates back to the Middle Ages. The legendary bishop, who supposedly travels by steamship from Spain to Holland, is accompanied by his helper: Black Pete. Together they deliver presents to all good behaved children of the country, Saint Nicholas on horse and Black Pete as the personal deliverer through the chimney. Their arrival in the Netherlands, a few weeks before the actual celebration, is broadcast on national television and is the beginning of the annual festivity. Saint Nicholas is celebrated in The Netherlands, parts of Belgium, and the former Dutch colonies (such as Surinam), and by the Dutch considered to be the most important tradition of the Netherlands (Mesman, Janssen & Rosmalen, 2016). For centuries, Sinterklaas operated on his own, riding the roofs on his white horse and throwing presents through chimneys, or punishing naughty children by spanking them or taking them with him in a bag. Around 1800 a white helper is first mentioned in the storyline. However, in the 1920s this helper changed skin-color and became depicted with the characteristics of a colonial stereotype of a Black slave. It is exactly this appearance that caused (inter)national controversy, as anti-Black Pete activists protest that by no means the racial stereotypical characteristics of swollen red lips, the frizzy hair or the golden earrings can be justified (Boer-Dirks, 1993; Hilhorst & Hermes, 2016; Mesman, Janssen & Rosmalen, 2016). The discussion has been going on and off for almost half a century on a more local level. However, since 2010s seemed to have been exploded and developed in a forceful, heated and intense public discussion on a national (and in times even 18 international) level (Helsloot, 2009; 2012; Mesman, Janssen, Rosmalen, 2016). Critics continue to claim that the current appearance of Black Pete is a hurtful, racist remnant of slavery, a ‘colonial hangover’ (Bergman, 2014). Opposed by a group of people who defend what they consider to be an essential element of the Dutch culture (Hilhorst & Hermes, 2016). Based on the patriotic distinction as described by Sarrasin, Green & Fasel (2016), the primer group could be categorised as constructive patriots, and people who do not feel connected to the nation but for other reasons aim for a change in the Dutch cultural tradition. The latter group clearly consists of blind patriotists, who take a more conservative stand and want to safeguard Black Pete as a matter of protection of national identity. Contested cultural matters such as the Black Pete discussion, clearly depicts a dichotomization of social space in an ‘us’ and a ‘them’ and herewith encourages cultural conflict through for example evoking xenophobia (Hilhorst & Hermes, 2016). Ferguson (2005) argues that (increasing) value of cultural identities to individuals, is drawn from the nature of threat or conflict. The need for ‘survival’ provides an internal drive for people to become loyal to cultural aspects that are threatened, which results in an intense feeling of reappraisal. Within the discussion of Black Pete, this notion was confirmed as an analysis of media content showed that people revalue and even glorify the cultural matter, because of an experienced increase in threat (Hilhorst & Hermes, 2016). According to scholars there has been a reawakening of national identity, a revival in the concept of ‘place’ and authoritarian approach (Lynn & lea).

3.3.2 Populism in cultural conflict In the literature, there is debate whether populism should be dominantly perceived as an ideology, discourse, syndrome, style or strategy (Betz, 2002; Canovan, 1999; Hawkins, 2009; Jagers, 2007; Mudde, 2004; Ware, 2002; Wiles, 1969). Due to its multiplicity in functions, scholars use the term populism in loose and inconsistent ways. Besides, populism is often used as a buzzword, which works two both ways. On one hand, the word is used in situations in which it is actually not applicable. While on the other hand, it can be hard to pin down populism, as it is extremely rare that people label themselves as populist, and usually also reject the term when it is appointed to them by others. This vagueness often results in misconceptions as people tend to merge populism with other labels. Making the definition of populism synonymous to other (not per definition related) concepts, is really detrimental for understanding the content of these essentially different labels (Albertazzi & McDonnell, 2008). Frequent misunderstandings for example are that populism is inseparable from the political spectrum (left-wing or right-wing politics), or that it solely coexists with radical or extreme perceptions. Nevertheless, when crossing the boundaries of these frames, aiming for a general applicable definition, populism can be described as a process that: “pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and/or dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values,

19 prosperity, identity and voice” (Albertazzi & McDonnell, 2008, p. 3). The four following intertwined principles are found at the core of the previous stated definition of populism: (1) ‘the people’ are one, and are inherently ‘good’, (2) ‘the people’ are sovereign, (3) ‘the peoples’ ’ culture and way of life are of paramount value, and (4) the leader and party/movement are one with ‘the people’ (Albertazzi & McDonnell, 2008). Herewith populism is considered as underscoring the gloriﬁcation of ‘the people’, and often characterised by what is called a ‘folky style’ (meaning to be accessible and relevant to all, especially to ‘the people’). By this validation of a specific group of people, the distance between ‘the people’ and ‘the others’ is emphasised. Within populism, this ‘Folksy style’, has the overall aim to overrule ‘the others’, rather than to appeal to a broad public (Mudde, 2004, pp. 542–543; Taggart, 2000, p. 5). The need to overrule ‘the others’ also comes from the perception that the complexity and the compromises of modern society (e.g. in politics) are the outcome of the incompetence of this group of ‘others’. Additionally, this is linked to the idea that these ‘others’ have a sole ambition to maintain or improve their status quo (Pasquino, 2008, pp. 21–22). Hence, for these populists, the solution is only to be found within restoring the dominant position of ‘the people’ (Vossen, 2010). Another related feature is that populist have a broader mission in which they desire to restore democracy and government to ‘the people’ (without any thresholds and restrictions from ‘the others’). Recurrent themes in populism for example are: referenda or a strong conﬁdence in a charismatic leadership (Vossen, 2010). Populism is essential to the context of this study, as it dichotomizes social space through thinking in an ‘us’ and a ‘them’. In their attempt to understand the underlying social and mental processes of dichotomization in the comparable polarized Black Pete debate, Hilhorst & Hermes (2016) analysed Facebook pages and posts that aim at the Black Pete discussion and herewith identified some remarkable features. To begin with, they argue that the discussion is deeply tied to a feeling of ‘suffering’, which to them appears to be the motor behind people’s engagement to the discussion, as they argue for both pro- Pete and against-Pete people. On one hand, the pro-Pete people express the suffering of the Dutch people whom in their experience have to give up Dutch culture again and again. While on the other hand, people against Pete, see suffering in the ongoing fight against inequality. Black Pete became a representation for all the ways in which ‘the Dutch’ suffer. Closely related to this first character, is what Hilhorst and Hermes call ‘the domino theory’. The domino theory finds itself on the side of the pro-Pete camp and appears to be an expression of the feeling of fear or anxiousness. It can be described as the reasoning of: “if we allow this… all sorts of other things will be taken from us as well”. The connection to the feeling of suffering, is to be found in an inner personal experience of a long history of the Dutch giving up their traditions in favour of those of others (2016, p. 225). This thought of mind however can be put into perspective by what sociologist Martha Nussbaum calls ‘the availability heuristic’. This explains how inner experiences closely related to emotions (such as fear or anxiety), can lead to a ‘mental shortcut’ based on direct examples from our memory and herewith empowers aspects of the mental frames we

20 create, which are not per se based on objective facts (2012, p. 34). The third feature of the Black Pete discussion that seemed recurrent, was the expressed ‘ungratefulness’ as mentioned by the pro-Pete contestants. What came forward, was idea amongst pro-Pete commentators that Dutch people have been nothing but welcoming and generous to immigrants and foreigners and that by criticizing Black Pete, people show ungratefulness to this Dutch attitude (leaving out that Surinam and the Antilles have been part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands for centuries and that for example labour migration was encouraged out of Dutch economic interest rather than international solidarity). Besides, this conception often went along with the presumption that people, criticizing Black Pete, are solely concerned with this issue and not with other national problematic issues (such as unemployment to elderly care) (Hilhorst & Hermes, 2016). The final characteristic from the Black Pete discussion is the ‘glorification of Dutch tradition’. People revalue aspects of culture even more just because it is criticized. In line with this revaluation of someone’s own history, is the exclusion from ‘the outside’, by abolishing any discussion based on the ground that the other person is no expert as that person is positioned in another (cultural) group. Even when international organizations such as the UN back certain oppositional grounds, or especially then, they are dismissed. All based on the idea that outsiders cannot and will not understand, as this is a truly Dutch matter (Hilhorst & Hermes, 2016). Altogether, it can be stated that the Black Pete discussion has a clear populist dimension. “We are the people, we should be an unmistakable force, yet we, the ordinary people, are denied time and again. The ordinary or normative subject is reproduced as the injured party: the one ‘hurt’ or even damaged by the ‘invasion’ of others. The bodies of others are hence transformed into ‘the hated’ through a discourse of pain” (Ahmed, 2004, p. 114). This dichotomization of social space in ‘us’ and a ‘them’ is an occurrence which can be nourished by the notion of nationalism (van Reekum, 2016). Bringing the notions of populism and nationalism together in the Dutch context, some scholars argue that through political tendencies and debates in the public sphere, it became clear that the Dutch had a backlash against a once dominant cosmopolitan multiculturalism and are tolerant no more (van Reekum, 2012; Hilhorst & Hermes, 2016). Nationalism’s renewed salience (often placed in the post-2001 period), is understood to be a reaction against attempts to move beyond the ﬁssures of race and racism while instating a public culture of merit-based worth, tolerance and openness (van Reekum, 2016). The narration of such a backlash ties into contestation across European polities, in which the vested management of diversity and immigration – often dubbed ‘multiculturalism’ – is said to have produced an ever increasing tension between those who claim nativity and cultural heritage and those who are deemed newcomers to a continent of universal rights, freedom and equality (Schinkel 2007; Lentin and Titley 2011; Van Reekum 2014).

3.3.3. Activism, race and cultural conflict In opposition to the effects of populism, there is also a large group of people aiming for more inclusion and equality for all. Racial activists, claim that historical patterns of suppression and its contemporary remnants, are sustained and maintained by the systems of white privilege. White privilege refers to the social, political, cultural and economic benefits white people possess based on racial grounds. Political, cultural, economic and social structures are historically created through social construction dominated by white people, which caused an unequal distribution of power, resources and privileges. Consciously and unconsciously this benefits white people, and disadvantages people of color. In sum, white privilege can be described as: everyday unconscious privileges that white people bare, however are ignorant and unaware of because of its embeddedness (Diangelo, 2011). Movements of antiracism in the Netherlands, have only been active for a short period of time. It was not until 1945, after the Second World War, that race was broadly recognised as a social construct. Consequential, people considered racism as ‘not done’, and it became a subject of taboo. Nevertheless, in practice, racism was still silently active. It is exactly this standardised paradox, that is challenged by contemporary activists. In The Netherlands, this narrative often collides with the self-image of the Dutch and therefore evokes (extreme) emotions and resistance (Jouwe, 2015). In general, the Dutch think of themselves as tolerant, non-racist, and innocent. However this narrative claims that there is also blindness in relation to privileges and power positions (Hilhorst & Hermes, 2016; Wekker, 2016). This standardised paradox and possible self-image in denial, could be an explanation for the little research which has been executed in The Netherlands about these issues. Contemporary Dutch society finds its roots in overseas expansion, colonialism and imperialism, and so does the historical story of Witte Corneliszoon de With. Slave trafficking and ownership is part of this history and were not included in the national historical story telling for a long time (Wekker, 2016). As mentioned before, the shared Dutch historical narrative is challenged, while acknowledgement and inclusion for non-white narratives are being claimed. Therefore the debate of racism is related to the Witte de With debate, as they both derive from the social construct of the Dutch historical narrative in which these power relation are imbedded missing pages on matters of suppression still exist. Both this social construct and the discourse of the debate are established in the public sphere, in which framing by people is of great influence.

3.4 Public sphere Public sphere is the space for societal communication in which problems of general concern are discussed, all opinions may be expressed, and collective solutions are constructed. Hence, the “public sphere” constitutes a public stage for discourse regarding the critical problems and topics of collective concern which are found in the public realm (Moshe, 2004). Mass media and online networks, support and sustain communication in the public sphere. Public sphere translates into two related terms: ‘the 22 public’, or the collective of speakers and listeners present in the public sphere, and ‘publicness’, or the state of being publicly visible (Wessler & Freudenthaler, 2018; Bruns & Highfield, 2015). One of the conditions for enabling citizens to act as a “public” and become part of public activity is their being freed from force or other environmental pressures when dealing with public issues. Only thus are they enabled to feel responsibility to the social collective, and to give free expression to their ideas (Moshe, 2004). Mass media, such as newspapers influence the character of a public debate as it provide a stage to express. It affords an opportunity to speak (Habermas 2016, p. 415). Previously, only a small group of elites had the opportunity to speak out in the public sphere (e.g. journalist). Whereas the common people had the function of listening. However since the 1960 these boundaries between speakers and listeners have faded through for example technological developments. News and public affairs reporting has transformed from a largely oligopolistic media environment, dominated by a few major public and commercial media organisations, to a diverse, complex and even confusing media ecology (Bruns & Highfield, 2015). Nowadays, the public sphere is open for anyone to participate. With this it can be difficult to separate fiction from truth and any input of information can be accepted to construct someone’s social reality. This underlines even more the fact that reality is a social construct. Therefore it is important, when analysing a debate in a public sphere, to establish who speaks and who is allowed to speak (Bruns & Highfield, 2015; Gripsrud, Moe, Molander & Murdock, 2010; Hartley and Green, 2006; Reese & Shoemaker, 2016). Additionally, this open access of the contemporary means of public spheres, enables action networks to form easily, eventually enforcing fragmentation and polarisation (Pond & Lewis, 2019; Webster 2013, P. 25). Therefore, “the current public sphere is revealed as a complex combination of multiple interlocking elements that sometimes counteract, sometimes amplify each other, and that each possess their own specific dynamics” (Dahlgren 2009, p. 74). Due to this contemporary open and complicated character of public sphere, it is even questioned whether the original concept of ‘THE public sphere’ is still relevant (Bruns & Highfield, 2015; Gripsrud et al., 2010). Nevertheless, to this current research, the previous presented definition of “the space for societal communication, in which problems of general concern are discussed, all opinions may be expressed, and collective solutions are constructed” is most accurate. As the name Witte de With is firstly criticized by Cinema Olanda in an open letter, it directly hit ‘the public’. Not only in terms of people, as the letter is addressed to a collective of listeners, also in terms of making the debate a public matter and available for everyone to participate. One of the consequences of this manner of communicating, is that it brings highly individual interpretations and framing to discussions (Schmidt, 2014).

3.5 Frames and the act of framing Frames (and frameworks) are "schemata of interpretation that enable individuals to locate, perceive, identify, and label" events and objects that people directly or indirectly experience or perceive (Snow,

Rochford, Worden & Benford, 1986, p. 464). Hence, frames generate meaning and place experiences in broader structures simultaneously (Carragee & Roefs, 2004). Framing is analyzed, then, by describing the process of creating meanings and elements of persuasion vital to both collective action and to cognitive processes (Benford, 1997). Hence, the process of constructing and perceiving frames, does not happen in a vacuum. At the broadest level, societal or political tendencies for example can influence the process and direction of framing (Beckett, 1996; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989). Besides, media and other online (social) channels also construct and convey frames with the messages they send. The basic premise of these analyses is that the media construct various frames for covering various events; the main rationale for the premise being that reporters’ attitudes and values inﬂuence the way they write (Moshe, 2004). On a micro level, individuals construct and adjust frames by own experiences. In his definition of framing, Entman (1993) emphasises the act of framing from the perspective of the production side of the process: “to frame, is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (p.5). As development and knowledge and understanding are also social processes (Billig, 1991; Billig et al., 1988; Burr, 1995), ways of thinking and behaving are transmitted through social institutions, cultural traditions and day-to-day interactions between individuals and groups. These processes of transmission, are rather quickly internalized and consequently the transmitted information becomes part of everyday life (Burr, 1995; Lynn & Lea, 2003). As previously presented, (mass) media has an important pivotal role within the process of distributing knowledge and creating understanding of (social) matters. It constructs, provides and maintains mental frames in relation to the items it presents. Hence, media is rather influential to the social processes that underly our individual and group-related interpretation. Within public debates, media often are the thread that binds issues and people together (Fowler, 1991; Hall, 1978; Van Dijk, 1991).

3.6 Traditional media Traditional media, or as some refer to as old media, encompasses news outlets like printed media (newspapers and magazines), television and radio. This research focused on written data and therefore took newspapers and weekly news magazines as its data source. Shoemaker and Reese (1996) argue that this media content is shaped by several factors which results in the presentation of different versions of reality. They establish a hierarchical model (figure 1) with five distinguishing levels of influences on news content, which provides insight in the production side of news (Ouwens Nagell, 2006). From macro- to micro-level analysis, the hierarchy of influences approach looks at the forces that shape media messages

24 on separate yet related levels (Ibrahim, 2003, Hafez, 2000). To this research the individual and extramedia level are especially relevant. The individual influences are all personal aspects of the mediawriter that (possibly) influences his output. These are for example: background characteristics of the mediawriter such as gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, education personal attitudes, values, beliefs (Hafez, 2000, p. 8; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). Hence, the experience and knowledge of a mediawriter, which influences how he/she sees the world, might cause different people to present different perspectives in news content about the same subject. This relates to (the power of) framing, which is presented in the next subchapter. The extramedia level encompass all external factors that influence news content from outside the media organization. Common external influences are: sources which a media organization uses, Figure 1, Hierarchy of influences model by Shoemaker & advertisers, audiences or government controls. These Reese (1996) external influences are both controlled and uncontrolled by the media organizations. Regardless, mediawrites are dependent on these sources as they provide them with information as input for their work (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). Amongst these external sources are other media sources, as media organizations also influence each other. If for example a certain newspaper has a scoop, this is rapidly taken up on by other media. Hence, various external sources function as input for the news stories and hereby shape the news content. An interesting external source in the context of this research, are interest groups. Interest groups are groups of people that want to make their views clear to the audience in order to influence the public opinion. For them media is a useful tool to convey their message to a large audience. Their technique is to get the attention of the media in direct and indirect ways (e.g. through publishing press releases or organizing of pseudo-events (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). In case of the WdW debate a clear interest group is recognized in the group of people who initially criticized the name of the institution. By means of an open letter they did an attempt to strengthen their position by presenting their opinion to a wider audience. Their role plays a major role in the discourse of the public debate and therefore (indirectly) influences the news content.

3.6.1 Newspapers and weekly news magazines There is no absolute way of distinguishing between newspapers and magazines, since they share many features. However, traditionally newspapers are usually issued daily or weekly, and news magazines weekly or less often. Besides, in general, the purpose of a newspaper is to convey news messages, consisting of current information, as efficiently as possible. A magazine will, in general, present more in-

25 depth coverage of news with the aim to give the consumer an understanding of the important events beyond the basic facts. Newspapers and news magazines are utilized as a proxy for the wider media: looking beyond the specific issues being presented in the news, it seems like mediawriters have considerable power to select what they present as news to their readers (Smith et al., 2002). Power relations are often neglected but of great influence, as on one hand it can reinforce the presented message, while on the other hand it also influences the extent of someone’s reception (Carragee & Roefs, 2004; Hall 1982). These adopted frames by information providers of any kind, as means of optional ideological aims should be taken into consideration when studying framing, in order to develop an understanding of which frames ‘work’ and how people consequently perceive situations (in Binder, 1993). According to Smith et al. (2002), it becomes clear that newsmakers have the possibility to shape a story, both in topic and scope once one advances beyond the notion that there is a single 'objective' perspective from which a news story can be presented. Blogs and social media websites writing and debating about this case were not included because they do not possess a large circulation as official newspapers do, and furthermore they tend to be less trustworthy. Within the process of reporting on events, these actors/participants function as a gatekeepers as they selectively (re)present certain elements of information in their stories (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Carragee & Roefs, 2004). Herewith these actors/participants create a dominant reading for a text and/or reduces the readers' capacities to comprehend it differently (Entman 1991). Therefore it can be said that producers of frames, also actively construct the events they report (Binder, 1993; Carragee & Roefs, 2004). Hence, there could be a certain ideological dimension within the process of framing. Altogether, the creation of a frame(work) is both a social and a cognitive process and happens simultaneously from the construction and the receiver side of the process. Public spheres are playgrounds upon which this process finds place, and its actors/participants (such as media or online social channels) have an important role. Within the Witte de With debate, it is expected that through framing, meaning is attached to the historically charged name ‘Witte de With’, in order to present a participants position in the debate. It is also expected that media provides a stage for its audiences to publicly join the debate. Furthermore, a virtuous circle in relation to ‘power’ could emerge from the data: people with certain positions of power can easily speak through the means of media, and are inclined to be given the right to speak; with this, they will dominate the debate, which could cause extremes oppositions to react; hence, polarization can occur, leading to greater differences between groups and again feeding power inequality.

4 Data and methods 4.1 Research context To investigate how the historical charged name of ‘Witte de With for Contemporary Art’ is contested within the current public debate of cultural change in The Netherlands, a qualitative content analysis was performed on Dutch media content. The representation of the WdW discussion in the media provides a window for studying mental framing processes and frameworks that are connected to discussions of cultural change. As the expressed focus on specific aspects on, or links to, the story, expose the different dominant readings of the situation, individual and social meaning making processes of the discussion can be identified. This information builds up to the ways in which the name is contested as it presents the interpretations of the name change and underlying ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc. As previously presented through the influences model of Shoemaker and Reese (1996), newspaper articles include both the voice of the newspaper and the consumer at the same time. Opinion/editorial pieces and columns proved particularly interesting for framing studies, as they bare this dual meaning in expression: they constitute a setting in which individuals (the writers) may express their views and opinions in public, and simultaneously also conform the newspapers’ vision as they are selected by the newspapers (Richardson, 2001, p. 144; Lynn & Lea, 2003). Until a certain degree, writers have the freedom to write, while editor still mediates the selection and edit such articles (Morrison and Love, 1996). Hereby they represent an interesting intersection of everyday and mediated discourse (Richardson, 2001). This results in the news content to reflect what audiences and active stakeholders want to be presented. Consequently they express and reflect a broad range of political, social and institutional views and ideas that are both current and topical. Additionally, it has been acknowledged that media, and especially newspapers, have the persuasive power to construct and dispense social knowledge (Fowler, 1991; Hall, 1978; Van Dijk, 1991). Therefore, newspaper articles provide a fruitful source in order to find answers to the research question. Besides, in general, newspaper articles are easily accessible and from an ethical perspective, the value of the information and the material contained within newspapers is that it has already entered the public domain. As such, it is available to be used (Lynn & Lea, 2003; Maslog, Lee & Kim, 2006). Nevertheless, it should be noted that newspapers have a dwindling importance within contemporary society caused by for example technological developments such as the internet, which provides easy and free access to news at all times. Shift from traditional forms to for example online sources, which cause a decline in interest for newspapers and hence a decline in resources for the organizations that publish the newspapers. Overall, the industry continues to shrink (Boczkowski, 2002, p. 270-286).

4.2 Method: qualitative content analysis of media coverage This study employed the method of a qualitative content analysis in order to identify framing processes and to analyze frameworks presented by (parts of) news articles which contested the name use of Witte

27 de With. In general, the aim of qualitative research within the domain of media analysis is to gain a thorough understanding of the characteristics of documents under study, to explore how they relate to theoretical or conceptual issues, and to illuminate what they represent in the broader social context (Altheide, 1996), which is most important for tis research. The method of content analysis is considered as a flexible approach, most suited to identify "multiple interpretations by considering diverse voices (readers), alternative perspectives (from different ideological positions), oppositional readings (critiques), or varied uses of the texts examined (by different groups)” (Krippendorff, 2004, p. 88). Besides, also when analysing communications in order to interpret meaning from the content of text data (such as underlying ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc.), content analysis is most fruitful (Babby, 2013; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Cavanagh, 1997). When it comes to the approach of qualitative content analysis, there are no strict systematic rules for analysing data (Bryman, 2012, p. 557-561). Most important is that the data is leading in the approach to answer the research question. In general, categories and names for categories are derived from the data and preconceived categories are avoided. This allows researchers to develop new insights based on the actual data content. On one hand “the researcher is constantly revising the themes or categories that are distilled from the examination of documents” (Altheide, 1996, as cited in Bryman, 2012, p. 559), while on the other hand, it is equally important to work in a systematic manner as the eventual aim is to produce valid and meaningful findings. The aim is to be systematic and analytic but not rigid (Bryman, 2012). As the context of this study is defined by a debate that is still active and in development, this emphasis on flexibility and systematic working was applied. Besides, also the evolving nature of human opinions require flexibility when analysing data sources over time. In general, four steps are recurrent within content analysis: formulating the research question, sampling of the data, the phase of coding, and the analysis (White & Marsh, 2006; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). These steps were leading in the execution of this research. Fist, the research question was established. After, in order to become familiar with the context of the research, the theoretical foundation was established and the data was selected. Then, the open coding technique allowed categories to derive from the data. These emergent categories were later used as a foundation for the presentation of the results of the research. Which eventually were interpreted in order to answer the question in what ways the name Witte de With is contested in the data (Altheide, 2004; Marshall and Rossman, 1999; Fox, 2004; Coffey & Atkinson, 1996; Patton, 2002). Hence, very generally, the analytic procedure entails: “finding, selecting, making sense of and synthesising data contained in the analysed documents” (Bowen, 2009, p. 27). As the research question guides the data gathering and analysis but potential themes and other questions may arise from careful reading of data, this research takes an inductive approach (Bryman, 2012; White & Marsh, 2006). As the focus of this current research is on analysing frameworks presented in news articles which contest the name of WdW, this research approaches the act of framing from the production side of the

28 process. It was explored which aspects of the perceived reality is presented and made more salient in such a way that it promotes specific elements of the described Witte de With case (Entman, 1993, p.5; Snow, Rochford, Worden & Benford, 1986, p. 464).

4.3 The sample & unit of analysis Within this study, the gathered data can be categorized as Dutch media content about the cultural conflict concerning the contested name of Witte de With. It was chosen to select the sample on ground of subject/content and within a specific time frame. The coverage time frame for the articles was from February 10th 2017 to May 24th 2019. February 10th 2017 was the date that the concern of name change was expressed for the first time (during the first meeting of Cinema Olanda: Platform) and herewith became a subject of discussion. For this reason, the data collection time period began at this specific date. The end date was until a recently as possible. Articles were collected using the Lexis-Nexis Academic online database by searching for all articles with the term “Witte de With” in the database’s “headline, lead paragraph(s), terms” search parameter. Written news content shorter than 10 lines are not considered ‘articles’ and therefore were not included in the sample. The remaining articles were cross referenced and duplicates were eliminated. This led to a sample of 132 news articles, covered by 23 different Dutch newspapers and weekly news magazines. 21 of these data sources are local and national newspapers, published on a daily or weekly bases. The reaiming two sources (Groene Amsterdammer and Elsevier) are opinion magazines weekly published on a national level. Table 1, provides an overview of these media sources and illustrates some of the main characteristics of the articles. As can be seen from the table, the first column of the table contains the newspaper or magazine. The second column shows how many articles were published on the debate by that specific media source. Followed by whether they were published in Rotterdam, what type of articles were published and which stands in the discussion were presented. Remarkably only three sources published in Rotterdam. Daily newspapers AD and Metro (which is for free) both have a special edition for the city, resulting in 19 (17 by AD and 2 by Metro) articles to be published in Rotterdam. Additionally, the Havenloods, which is a weekly local newspaper from Rotterdam that is distributed for free, published two articles. The sort of articles identified in the sample are presented in the fourth column. News publications are articles that present straight news/hard news, which means that they report only the most essential information in a concise and impartial manner. Features are more in-depth than traditional news publications of hard news. The style of these articles tend to be more like storytelling and do not focus merely on the basic facts. Therefore, Feature articles are considered to be soft news. Opinion pieces are based upon personal opinions and interpretations and in the data are created by two types of newswriters (Roberts, 2016, chapter 25). Official newswriters, such as journalist, have the opportunity to communicate personal points of view about current events and topics. They mostly present personal opinions in order to develop an argument about an issue and

29 even sway readers’ opinions. As representatives from the news organization these official mediawriters work for, their opinions represents the official view of an editorial board that determines what views are shared. Newspapers and weekly news magazines also publish input of external newswiters, through from example correspondence by letters/e-mails. With the given information above, it can be concluded that the unit of analysis of this study, are (parts of) articles from Dutch newspapers and weekly magazines.

Data sources Amount Published in Type of article(s) Stands presented articles Rotterdam (Critic published on Guard the debate Narrator) 1 NRC 22 N opinion 12 C= 32% news publication 5 G= 24% feature 5 N= 44% 2 De Volkskrant 21 N opinion 11 C= 28% news 4 G= 20% feature 6 N= 52% 3 AD 19 17 opinion 12 C= 23% news publication 2 G= 35% feature 5 N= 42% 4 De Telegraaf 15 N opinion 9 C= 20% news publication 2 G= 45% feature 4 N= 35% 5 Trouw 10 N opinion 3 C= 30% news publication 1 G= 30% feature 6 N= 40% 6 De Groene 5 N opinion 0 C= 43% Amsterdammer news publication 0 G= 14% feature 5 N= 43% 7 Nederlands dagblad 4 N opinion 3 C= 17% news publication 1 G= 33% feature 0 N= 50% 8 Eindhovens dagblad 4 N opinion 1 C= 40% news publication 0 G= 40% feature 3 N= 20% 9 Elsevier weekblad 4 N opinion 4 C= 33% news publication 0 G= 33% feature 0 N= 33% 10 Het Parool 3 N opinion 0 C= 44% news publication 1 G= 28% feature 2 N= 28% 11 Dagblad van het 3 N opinion 1 C= 38% Noorden news publication 1 G= 38% feature 1 N= 24% 12 De Havenloods 2 2 opinion 2 C= 0% news publication 0 G= 50% feature 0 N= 50% 13 Algemeen 2 N opinion 0 C= 33% Nederlands Persbureau news publication 1 G= 33% feature 1 N= 33% 14 Metro 2 2 opinion 0 C= 50% news publication 1 G= 25% feature 1 N= 25% 15 Leidsch Dagblad 2 N opinion 1 C= 67% news publication 1 G= 22%

feature 0 N= 0% 16 De Twentsche 2 N opinion 2 C= 0% Courant Tubantia news publication 0 G= 50% feature 0 N= 50% 17 BN de Stem 2 N opinion 1 C= 50% news publication 1 G= 0% feature 0 N= 50% 18 Reformatorisch 2 N opinion 1 C= 0% dagblad news publication 0 G= 50% feature 1 N= 50% 19 Vrij Nederland 2 N opinion 0 C= 34% news publication 0 G= 0% feature 2 N= 66% 20 De Stentor 2 N opinion 1 C= 0% news publication 0 G= 50% feature 1 N= 50% 21 Brabants dagblad 2 N opinion 1 C= 0% news publication 0 G= 50% feature 1 N= 50% 22 Haarlems dagblad 1 N opinion 1 C= 100% news publication 0 G= 0% feature 0 N= 0% 23 De Gooi- en 1 N opinion 1 C= 50% Eemlander news publication 0 G= 0% feature 0 N= 50% Total : 132 21 opinion 67 C= 56/191 = 29% news publication 21 G= 57/191 = 30% feature 44 N= 78/191 = 41% Table 1, Overview of newspapers and weekly news magazines that published on the Witte de With debate. What stands out in the table is the top five of these newspapers because of the amount of articles they published on the Witte de With debate: NRC, with 22 articles published; de Volkskrant, with 21 articles; 19 articles from AD; de Telegraaf published 15 articles; and Trouw participated to the debate with 10 articles. The remaining 18 newspapers all participated to the debate with between one and five articles. Furthermore, it is apparent from this table that in general the opinion pieces are most dominant in the sample as they with 51% of the articles. Opinion pieces are second most represented by 33% of the articles, while hard news publications are only represented by 16%. This implies that the news sources, newspapers and weekly news magazines, are mostly involved in the discussion through personal opinions and more in depth explorations about the matter, which to some level are also based upon individual and subjective stands. This link to personal involvement through opinions, could also refer to the personal connection people experience to have with this debate, as it relates to matters of cultural identity. When aiming at the positions presented within the articles, multiple position could be presented within one article. In the final column of the table, the percentages of the positions taken within the articles per newspaper are presented. Altogether, 41% of all taken positions can be categorised as narrator, which therefore is the most dominant presented stand within the sample. The position of the culture guard (30%) and culture critic (29%) was almost equally presented within the data.

5 Results Before presenting the findings on the actual content analysis of the 132 news articles, this chapter will go deeper into the context of the Witte de With debate and the objective facts of the sample, which both also lead to some interesting factors that influence the results of this research.

5.1. Developments within the public debate on the name of WdW The selection of the articles through Lexis Nexis led the sample of this research. The content of this sample was the foundation for this research’s analysis. As previously stated, news content is influenced on a extramedia level by external influences from outside the media organization (e.g. sources which the organization use, advertisers and audiences, government controls, the marketplace or technology). These external context and the content of news articles simultaneously influence each other through their interaction (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). Hence, the content of the sample correlates with external developments within the public debate. Based on information provided by the content of the sample and an informative outline of the debate form Witte de With for Contemporary Art, the following overview was established based on developments of (external) events in relation to the debate.

- On February the 10th 2017, the first planning meeting in preparation to Cinema Olanda: Platform happened at WdW. Critical questions are raised that address the historically charged name and its connection to contemporary forms of racism. A second planning meeting took place on the 20th of March 2017. - April the 6 th 2017, the discussion around the name of the institution takes a public turn on social media. On Twitter, several tweets are posted by and between initial Cinema Olanda: Platform participants and Witte de With staff. What follows in a period in which external people involved in the matter, express their discontent about the reaction of the institution to initial questions from the first planning meeting. - From May 2017, WdW engages in research around the history of Dutch naval officer Witte Corneliszoon de With; his biography and role in the Dutch colonial project; the naming of the street Witte de Withstreet in 1871, and; the namesake of the institution taken at its foundation in 1990. On June the 12th, the organization publishes an explanatory text on its website to express their awareness about the implications of operating as an contemporary art institution under such a name. with this text, the organization also confirms a blind spot in its institutional history and self-awareness. The day after this publication, June 13th 2017, the board of WdW expresses their intention that the institute should maintain an active position within the matter and plans to continue the research. - June 14th 2017, a group of cultural professionals, artists, and activists publish an open letter in which they present their claim against the name of the institution. In the period that follows, the letter is signed by hundreds of people. Among them are prominent figures from the art world and the field of decolonial studies. 32

- On June the 16th 2017, Cinema Olanda: Platform officially opens. The exhibition is until July the 21st of that same year. - The first article on WdW’s name debate is published by AD Rotterdams Dagblad on June 20th 2017. It is a news publication with a wordcount of 239. - About two months later, on August the 24th, De Groene Amsterdammer publishes the first elaborated article on the discussion on a national level. the type of article is a feature with a wordcount of 1661. - On the 5th of September 2017 the board of WdW decides that changes are needed in relation to the name of the institution. Two days later, on the 7th of September, WdW publishes an official reaction to the open letter on their website in which they also announce their decision from September the 5th. Also on the 7th, triggered by an article of AD Rotterdams Dagblad that morning, members of the local political party Leefbaar Rotterdam2 submit written questions on the WdW debate to the City Council. They demand answers to their questions in the Council meeting scheduled for 3 October 2017. - From September 12th until December 19th 2017, WdW organizes a weekly open lunch meeting to publicly provide for/participate to the debate. The meetings are mediated by employees of the art institute, and open for anyone to join. - October the 3th 2017, the City Council answers the questions of the local political party Leefbaar Rotterdam. The questions relate to the name debate of WdW, the choices the institute makes in relation to this debate and possible repercussions based on these choices (e.g. no more subsidy, or further rejection of historical names). The main answer of the City Council is that organizations and institutions are responsible for their own names, and do not require government control. Besides, financial repercussions are only initiated when organizations fail commitments, which is not suspected to be caused by the name change of WdW. - Since January 2018 Sofía Hernández Chong Cuy is the new director of WdW. Since her arrival, she has been meeting with the institution's staff and the members of its Supervisory Board, as well as with local artists, colleagues, civil servants, and cultural producers at large, collecting impressions and viewpoints on the institution and the name-change discussions begun last year. (Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art, n.d.; City Council of Rotterdam, 2017)

5.2 Findings on the data set When aiming at the individual units of which the sample consists, the distribution of these units also gives some indications in relation to the content. Figure 2 presents a timeline which gives insight into the spread of published articles within the timeframe of the sample. The time range in which the articles were published, have quite an equal distribution with a score between. However, closer inspection of the

2 Leefbaar Rotterdam is a local political party in the municipality of Rotterdam in the Netherlands. They take a right-wing position and are characterised by the ideologies of Conservative liberalism and Fortuynism. 33 timeline shows a remarkable high amount of published articles on five specific dates: 14 articles were published on the 8th of September 2017; the day after, on the 9th of September, 12 articles were published; on the 12th that month 7 articles were published; followed by five articles on the 14th of September 2017; and four articles half a year later on the 22nd of February 2018. Explanations for the specific amounts of published articles with their coherent dates, can be found when having a closer look

Date and amount of published articles 15 10

5 Amount

20-9-2017 20-6-2017 20-7-2017 20-8-2017 20-1-2018 20-2-2018 20-3-2018 20-4-2018 20-5-2018 20-6-2018 20-7-2018 20-8-2018 20-9-2018 20-1-2019 20-2-2019 20-3-2019

20-10-2017 20-11-2017 20-12-2017 20-10-2018 20-11-2018 20-12-2018 date

Figure 2, Spread of articles over timeframe of the sample. at the events within the development of the discussion. This first peak can be interpreted as a reaction stemming from newspapers that influence each other. As previously presented, an influence on news content are media sources itself. If a certain newspaper or news station has a scoop, this is rapidly taken up by other media (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). When looking at the events within the timeframe of the sample, just before this peak (on the 24th of August 2017) the first elaborated news article on the Witte de With matter was published by a Dutch weekly news magazine, De Groene Amsterdammer with a wordcount of 1661. The article leads to more news publications in local and national newspapers and could be an explanation of this first peak in the timeline. We find an explanation for the second peak, 4 published articles on the 22nd of February 2018, when aiming at the content of these articles. Three out of four articles explicitly and continually connect the Witte de With case to a (counter)reaction from the City Council of the Dutch city of Urk. Initiated by the political party Heart for Urk (translated from the Dutch name: Hart voor Urk), the City of Urk reacts to the public debate on re-evaluation of historically charged street names, by stating that The Netherlands owes its current wellbeing to this history and provokes that all new street names in Urk should be named after historical personas as Michiel de Ruyter, Johan Maurits or Witte Corneliszoon de With (Nederlandse Omroep Stichting [NOS], 2018). The public performance of this group and their outspoken statements as a counterreaction to the oppositional position that criticizes these street names, can be interpreted as the cause for this second peak in the timeline.

5.3 Findings through coding This current research aimed to understand how the name of Witte de With for Contemporary Art is contested trough the presentation of frames in news articles. Within the data, three distinct positions about the contemporary use of the name ‘Witte de With’ were identified: (1) ‘the culture critics,’ in their role as iconoclasts, explicitly state that the name should no longer be used; (2) ‘the culture guards, protecting the use of the name and aiming to maintain it; (3) ‘the culture narrators’, who want to maintain the use of the name however, aim to create a more broad and nuanced awareness about its historical roots by changing the narrative. Mediawriters who took one of these three positions within the data, approached the WdW case by applying frames through the presentation of arguments. Frames (and frameworks) are "schemata of interpretation that enable individuals to locate, perceive, identify, and label" events and objects that people directly or indirectly experience or perceive (Snow, Rochford, Worden & Benford, 1986, p. 464). Hence, in case of this research the act of framing is approached from the production side of the process and it was explored which aspects of the perceived reality are presented and made more salient in such a way that it promotes specific elements of the described Witte de With case (Entman, 1993, p.5). All presented arguments by the mediawriters were grouped into 8 categories, of which the three largest (historical, social critique and moral considerations), were the most dominant frames. The largest category, the category of social critique, contains all arguments that contest the name ‘Witte de With’ based upon social issues. This category is divided into the sub-categories of: arguments of ignorance, and arguments of inclusion and race. The category of ‘history’, presents all direct (e.g. historical) and indirect (e.g. references to change over time) arguments which are presented in order to contest the name. The category of moral considerations, presents in what ways the three positions are argued to be good or bad, and its underlying considerations. The distribution of these three Distribution of three main dominantly used frames over the three arguments positions, is presented in figure 3. Each complete column stands for 100% of all 160 140 arguments per position. The figures left 120 ○ History column presents the distribution of the 100 80 three frames as used by the cultural critics. ○ Social Critique 60 Of all arguments the critics presented, both 40 ○ Moral the historical and moral arguments were 20 0 used for 29%. The rest of the arguments, ○ CULTURE ○ CULTURE ○ NARRATOR 42%, were built upon social critique. The CRITIC GUARD Figure 3, Distribution of three dominant arguments, over the three presented middle column of the cultural guards shows positions.

35 that people who take this stand, ague upon: historical arguments for 33%, social critique for 42%, and moral considerations for 25%. And finally, at the column on the right, the used arguments by the narrators: historical arguments for 33%; social critique for 48%; and moral considerations by 19%. Hence, in general the argument of social critique was most dominant, followed by the arguments of history and morality. In the following text these three main categories will be clarifies more into depth. Each opening with a small general description, followed by the results per position.

5.3.1 Historical arguments The notion of time was presented within the data in an explicit and implicit manner. The explicit time arguments focus on specific aspects of time through the use of historical information that contest the name. Such as in the following example: “Witte Corneliszoon de With was an admiral of the VOC and therefore involved in colonial exploitation.” (Nadia Berkelder, AD Rotterdams Dagblad, code 1:2). The implicit time references were presented in the data as references to time related processes, which elaborated on the debate (e.g. comparisons between different worldviews through time). This indirect manner bares elements of the philosophy of time, as people contemplate on how past, present and future relate to one and other. A recurrent aspect is making comparisons between the past and the present and its characteristics, and based upon this comparison providing an argument on how to approach the future. As becomes clear in the following quote:

Most homages date from the 19th century when nationalism reigned. Nowadays we look more critically at people like De With and Coen. [...] If we take all those names out of the public space, we are trying to erase our history. I don't believe in that. These heroes refer to all kinds of chapters from our history that made The Netherlands to what it is today. (Liesbeth Dirks, history teacher, AD, Code 1.157).

This approach also finds its roots in ‘the history of mentalities’, which focusses on historical investigation towards mentalities of specific time periods. Hence, assuming that human thinking and feeling changes over time. Remarkable within this argument, is the dominance of the conception that ‘time cannot be reversed’. Following this line of reasoning, a Dutch artist stated: “We can indeed do all sorts of things with history… except getting rid of it. We have to deal with our colonial past, whether we want it or not. Also the ‘Western Art Institute’ has a colonial history. A pity perhaps, but true.” (Hans van Houwelingen, NRC Next & NRC Handelsblad, code 1318). This conception does not include historical facts, however illuminates how people approach historical content in contemporary times. Therefore, it functions as a gateway to contested name ‘Witte de With’.

The culture critic When elaborating on (the content of) the discussion by presenting historical information, ‘the culture critics’ clearly disapprove of the historical acts of Witte Corneliszoon de With and the organizational and social system in which he operated. Their historical arguments repeatedly present a negative evaluation of historical content through contemporary worldview. This results in the conception that the explicit name use of ‘Witte de With’ is incorrect and an unjustified glorification and therefore should not be included it Dutch culture. One of the writers for example argues: “Their acts have been praised for centuries. However, these so called heroes were nothing but villains who not only competed with the Spaniards and the English, but also burned down plantations in the name of the nation.” (Nico Brons & Wicher Maassen, AD Amersfoortse courant, code 1:262). Within these arguments, the considered horrors of the Dutch colonial history and expansion are given the most dominant position. "’There is nothing to be proud of when it comes to colonial past with slavery and mass robberies and murders,’ said Westerink.” (Erna Straatsma, Leidsch Dagblad, code 1:272). Based on the approach of history of mentalities, culture critics also argue that due to a change of mentalities over time, we are now able to acknowledge this inappropriate behaviour, something that did not happen before. Or as one writer argued:

In new times, new insights arise and old heroes are thrown off their pedestals. In that respect it is of no harm to consider the reputation of the old Dutch sea captain Witte de With, a much honored man from a time that overseas territories could still be robbed with great force, and people were not required to justify themselves on television. (Wessel Penning, AD Rotterdams Dagblad, code 1:247).

In opposition to this focus on the immoral and the designation of a perpetrator, the culture critics also have a clear focus on acknowledgement of a neglected side of the Dutch historical narrative. Hence, they also emphasise the attention for the suppressed, a victim as one could say. Within this position, it is argued that the contemporary cultural symbols and traditions, should make room for ‘the untold’. Hence, no more glorification of the perpetrator, meaning complete rejection of explicit use of ‘Witte de With’. Oppositional thinkers, mainly the culture guards, interpret this attention for the immoral and the untold, as caused by a feeling of shame, guilt or uncertainty. “A group of activists objected to the name of the Witte de With art center [...], which for the time being remains nameless out of shame” (Abran Swaan, De Groene Amsterdammer, code 1:405).

The culture guard The most dominant used time-argument by the culture guards, is in response to the moral argument of the cultural critics. People taking this position, state that “one cannot apply conceptions of today, to

37 moments of the past” (Hans van Soest, AD, code 1:189) and therefore the name cannot be removed based on these grounds.

You could just as well blame him [Witte Corneliszoon de With] for maintaining his contacts with foreign governments by letter and not by telephone or e-mail. Do you want to apologize on his behalf? In that case you better take the rest of your life off, because according to our current conceptions so much has gone wrong in the past that you would be busy apologizing for things day and night. I therefore hope that the current iconoclasm will fade away. The past simply has different standards and we must also use these standards to assess that past. An English author has put that very nicely into words: ‘The past is a foreign country where they do business differently.’ (Piet Emmer, Trouw, Code 1469)

As the previous quote also explicitly states, this type of argument isolates the different mentalities of specific time periods and sees them as an individual dimensions. This results in the immoral acts of the past being moralized in the present, as it eliminates any responsibility towards the historical acts in the present. This indirect use of time, is simultaneously rooted in both the ‘history cannot be reversed’ argument and the concept of ‘the history of mentalities’. When aiming on the more explicit use of time arguments by people taking this position, historical arguments were used in order to refute the historical arguments of the cultural critics, as for example becomes clear in the following quote of a Dutch historian:

Slave trade is terrible. However, the Dutch involvement in this is presented worse than it actually was. Out of a population of two million people, perhaps a thousand were actively engaged in the slave trade. It hardly yielded anything for our country. Calculations range from 0.001 to 0.1 percent of the Dutch gross national product. Most of the shipping companies involved in Slave trade went bankrupt. The slave trade even did not have to be abolished, it stopped automatically. (Piet Emmer , de Telegraaf, Unit 29)

Additionally, historical content was used to contest the name by glorification. The persona Witte Corneliszoon de With, was only glorified very little. This was done by leaving out the downside of his acts and behaviour. Moreover, the time period of which Witte Corneliszoon de With is considered to be a representative, the Golden Era, was glorified as it is argued that it brought great wealth to the Dutch. "Like there is any reason to put the concept of the Dutch Golden Age in between quotation marks if you have Vermeer, Rembrandt, Hals, Leijster and Ruijsdaels in your collection." (Unknown, de Volkskrant, code 1334). This glorification of historical content seems to evolve/relate in/to a feeling of pride towards the current state of the country. ”These heroes refer to periods that have made the Netherlands what it is today" (Eefje Oomen, AD, code 1:180). By the subsequent argument that this historical content made

The Netherlands to what it is today, it is stated that the Dutch should be proud on the historical narrative, and therefore should convey it through heritage such as the explicit name use of ‘Witte de With’. This argument is in line with the reasoning that history cannot be reversed, as it argues that people should not reverse history. It also bares a patriotic element of expressing pride towards the nation and national history. As people show an unquestioning and uncritical loyalty to the nation and its acts, these expressions of the culture guards, can be categorised as behaviour of ‘blind patriotism’ (Sarrasin, Green & Fasel, 2016). Besides, as the name conflict is dominantly centered around Rotterdam (due to the involvement of the Cinema Olanda and WdW), The feeling of patriotism is also explicitly aimed at the local context of the city. Hence also ‘local patriotism’ is presented (Moshe, 2004), as in the following quote:

It is a pity that all of a sudden also the cozy street, that bares the same name [Witte de With], has been brought into discredit. Thirty years ago the 'Witte de With' [street] was still a pathetic alley full of local penoze. Now it’s a radiant street full of nice establishments and terraces. For me, the street is symbolic for the contemporary and vibrant city of Rotterdam. (Unknown, AD Rotterdams Dagblad, code 1:249)

As patriotism is often linked to nationalism/racism, it is important to note that arguments presented within this line, are not explicitly linked to underlying intentions to exclude people. Arguments presented within this line of reasoning, explicitly aim at protecting a (shared) historical narrative that build a (shared) country. Nevertheless, some of these arguments bare both the ‘intention of sharing’, and the intention of shushing claims to a negative colonial hangover. Hence, they imply no room for other thoughts. As a participant to the debate states: “Bluntly put, the descendants of slaves now share in the prosperity of our part of the world.” (Unknown, de Telegraaf, code 1:233). Furthermore, cultural guards present a clear reaction to the expressed attention for neglected elements within the Dutch historical narrative by the cultural critics. Some cultural guards completely reject this assumed neglect, while other recognise a dominant narrative however state that we cannot act with retroactive effect. Eventually, both approaches still remain the position that the name should be maintained. Another remarkable argument to eliminate the stand of the cultural critics, came forward from statements of the cultural guards, in which they compare Dutch historical acts, with acts of other nations. This act of comparing becomes clear in the following quote: “In comparison to the contribution to slave trade by the Arab people, we [the Dutch] were just crumbles.” (Jan van Klinken, Reformatorisch Dagbblad, code 1:289). As with the previous example of disconnecting the ‘now’ from ‘then’, this approach disconnects ‘us’ from historical context by claiming that it could have been worse. The comparison to others is used for legitimization of own historical acts and again eliminates a claim to responsibility and undermines own involvement. 39

The narrator Within the time based arguments, the narrator presents a clear line of reasoning and ideology which is the foundation to their solution. This can be described by the following 3 rational steps: (1) history happened; (2) whether we like it or not, we cannot change it anymore; (3) we should however aim to incorporate critique in contemporary culture’. Therefore, the position of the narrator promotes that the name ‘Witte de With’ should not be removed from the Dutch cultural landscape, but needs additional and more nuanced historical information. As becomes clear in the following two quotes: “Our founding fathers were simply reckless looters and bandits whom we have been called 'heroes' for too long. I hope there will be room for new heroes and new institutions.” (Anna van Leeuwen, de Volkskrant, code 1:65)

Do men like Jan Pieterszoon Coen and Witte de With have to be honored with statues? "My idea would be: explain what the statues mean. I think you cannot clear the past by removing statues. The past remains as it is. It was then perfectly normal to be racist or anti-Semitic. (Unknown, de Telegraaf, code 1:230)

Hence, arguments as part of this approach are linked to the previous presented reasoning that history cannot be reversed, though acknowledges the downside of the Dutch historical narrative as stressed by the cultural critics. Therefore, the narrators differentiate themselves from the cultural guards by claiming that we should act on it through an including the critique. This constructive approach is often linked to a more general motivation to revaluate the overall historical narrative as currently dominantly used in The Netherlands. Art historian Sandra Smets for example argues that it is important to show how deeply rooted shared colonial history is as “recalling the past is necessary because it effects the now [...] art thus (unconsciously) propagates the ideology behind colonialism” (NRC, code 1:431). A possible explanation for the intention to maintain the contested name for emancipatory reasons, to increase shared national historical awareness, could be found within what is referred to as ‘constructive patriotism’ within the literature review. Constructive patriotism is characterized by a critical loyalty to the nation accompanied by the desire to change the criticized aspects out of love for the nation (Sarrasin, Green & Fasel, 2016). Within the data, this manifests itself by a critical attitude of people towards shared national history, and their willingness to change aspects of it.

5.3.2 Arguments of social critique Within the presented arguments of social critique, a distinction can be made between the subcategories of arguments of ignorance and arguments of social inclusion and exclusion of race. This first subcategory of arguments focusses on peoples attitude towards the debate and its content. Whereas arguments within the second subcategory, address ideological matters.

5.3.2A Arguments of Ignorance A rather large part of the code group ‘social critique’, was assigned to arguments of ‘ignorance’. By means of ignorance, the name is contested from several different angles, which all will be presented based on the three positions. The foundation to all arguments could be described as: we cannot be ignorant towards our (shared) past.

The culture critic People who reject the use of the name ‘Witte de With’, address a certain ‘blindness’ amongst people who do not acknowledge their critique that the historical acts were/are ‘wrong’. Hence, cultural critics identify blind spots in history, and an ignorant attitude with people towards these blind spots. This argument holds a strong connection to the previous presented element of history, as it is claimed that people are ignorant to the mistakes of the historical content. Additionally, it is argued that by this ignorance people distance themselves from any responsibility to correct these judged acts. Therefore they would maintain a one-sided historical narrative in which they again are ignorant. As seen in the following quotes, a claim to ignorance is made towards the events in the past, and towards current behaviour of people.

In the 26 years of its existence, why did the institution with its so called critical attitude, never think about that name, nor about its association with colonial violence, oppression, etc. [...] The fact that Witte de With has kept silent about the historical activities of her name giver is a deliberate choice. In fact: By propagating the name "Witte de With", the institute has quietly cleaned and promoted the violent conquests that characterize Dutch colonialism. (Koen Kelijn, de Groene Amsterdammer, code 1:23).

Here the mediawriter claims that the institute of WdW maintained an ignorant attitude towards their name. He stresses that being ignorant actively transfers meaning, and does not equal being unaware or being silent within the debate. According to him, being ignorant transfers the message of a deliberate choice to maintain and promote the historically charged name. Hence, ignorance bares the meaning of not wanting to have a critical view on the historical and cultural content. Remarkable is that people who present themselves as a culture critic, sometimes address their own ignorance, such as in the following statement: “Well, I have been in that street for a long time, but I had to check what the man had done, I had never really immersed myself in it. Just like everyone who has not studied history, I think.” (Unknown, De Havenloods, code 1:46). This shows a change in mindset by people which is caused by the public debate itself.

The culture guard Culture guards take an opposite approach to the concept of ignorance as they mainly argue that people cannot be ignorant towards their own history, and therefore should not erase its (contemporary) signs. 41

Through their arguments, cultural guards point out that they see a change in Dutch heritage, cultural symbols and traditions, as a sign of ignorance and rejection towards the(ir) Dutch national identity. In general, culture guards perceive this change as a diminishing of their culture, which in some cases is referred to as the “away-with-us-culture” (in Dutch: weg-met-ons-cultuur) (e.g. unit 10; unit 122). Hence, culture guards repulse opinions which challenge component of what they perceive as the Dutch cultural identity as they perceive these opinions as ignorant towards this exact culture. Additionally, the arguments of protecting a shared national identity, often also presents a political dimension as in the following quote.

We increasingly see people who argue that we must erase our past in a certain way. I find that a concern. It is often the wrong regimes that want to change the history and its manifestations. They model it according to their own insight and that depends on the wind that blows. That is also my objection to the name change that the management of the art institution Witte de With in Rotterdam now wants to implement. [...] Are we going to rewrite our history? Does our history has to be very pure and clean? So that the generations after us think that we have been perfectly well behaved throughout those thousands of years. Then we give people who are afraid of other cultures room to criticize what does not fit; in their eyes. And if the government continues to do what it does now through the Rijksmuseum, then we give future administrators and politicians in The Netherlands the space, when they are in power, to do what they see fit with art, culture, history and tradition. That can be a dangerous development. (Frank van den Heuvel , Nederlands Dagblad 1:348)

This quote clearly presents the argument that people cannot be ignorant towards their own history, and therefore should not erase it. In between lines it is recognised that mistakes were made, however if we erase these mistakes there will be no opportunity left to learn from these mistakes. According to the writer this elimination of freedom of existence, could eventually endanger democracy. Additionally, he makes another link between the political system and art, by expressing concerns about the freedom of making art and possible political limitations when democracy is rejected. The Dutch political system of democracy and freedom repeatedly appears to be highly valued by cultural guards as it is a recurrent subject within their arguments. Furthermore, in answer to the claim of cultural critics people have a certain ‘blindness’ towards the past, cultural guards present the concept of ‘history of mentalities’ by stating that people from the past lived in different times, with different mentalities, and therefore cannot be blamed for being ignorant. Moreover, they argue that people living in contemporary times, cannot made liable for historical acts. Hence, they clearly cut themselves off from historical circumstances and hereby refuse the arguments of ignorance of their opponents.

The narrator The narrator follows the same line of reasoning as the culture guard, by arguing that people cannot be ignorant towards their own history. However, whereas the cultural guards concludes that people should hold on to their cultural heritage, symbols and traditions, the narrator transforms this argument in a more inclusive approach. They incorporate both the acknowledgement of ‘the neglected’ and the dominant (challenged) cultural manifestations into a more progressive approach. The following quote clearly depicts a narrator who wants to maintain the name of WdW in order to increase the attention for the neglected historical aspects: “A new name would erase a link to the past, which actually needs visibility. [...] When street names and statues have been removed, there is little left in the public space to reminder the colonial past that we do not want to forget.” (Hans van Houwelingen, NRC, code 1:325).

5.3.2B Arguments of social inclusion and exclusion of race In connection to the WdW case, matters of social inclusion and exclusion based on race, are presented when introducing or reporting on the discussion, both through hard news and opinions. When incorporated in hard news, the argument of race is presented as argument used by the culture critics. Hence, in this case the article does not take a position in relation to racism, is solely reports on the arguments used by others, which is exemplified in following quote: “In the 27 years that the visual arts institution has been operating, nobody was disturbed by the name. Now a letter appeared that accused the anti-black institute.” (Anna van Leeuwen, de Volkskrant, code 1:56). Here indeed the mediawriter reports on the WdW case and presents the claim from the cultural critics. She does not however presents a personal opinion or argument on this matter. Nevertheless, in case of direct presentation of opinions by mediawriters, the argument of race is made inseparable from the debate as it is seen as one of the core reasons of the first critiques to the name of WdW.

The culture critic From the position of the cultural critic, race (as a social matter) is an often used starting point for contesting the name. The ‘racial argument’ finds its roots in the historical content from the narratives related to Witte Corneliszoon de With and was first clearly expressed by the participants of Cinema Olanda. Therefore their statements are often referred to by writers. For example, one cultural critic said:

The activists see Witte de With's reaction as proof that the institute fails to critically understand its own historicized whiteness. [...] That also seems to be the essence of the criticism of Witte de With: a white art institution may not be relevant to black people and black artists; even the most progressive Dutch institutions for contemporary art are intertwined with colonial history. The black discourse in such an institution is encapsulated by white people and rendered harmless. [...] It is not the first time that a predominantly white cultural institution is eliminating the criticism of black and non-black 43

people of color by adopting it, co-opting it at the same time, trying to make themselves immune. (Koen Kleijn, de Groene Amsterdammer, code 1:29)

This mediawriter presents racism as the essence of the WdW debate and therefore presents it as main argument. As in the quote above, the argument of race, overall is used by the cultural critics in order to criticize contemporary social patterns that underly and maintain heritage, such as the name ‘Witte de With. Within, the power positions are challenged through for example references to white privilege and contemporary forms of racial segregation. It is argued that by the continuing (white) privileged positions, people do not recognise and acknowledge the dominant Dutch narrative and hence deny suppression of people from certain racial backgrounds. To these cultural critics, Witte de With is a clear symbol of this social disbalance, and hence should be completely eliminated. This white privileged attitude is claimed in the following quotes:

The culture critic Egbert Alejandro Martina publicly asks the question: how could a white institution make a critical program under the name of a colonizer? At the Witte de With, they didn't have an answer to that easily. "The name of a street", they could have said, but Martina would not have settled for that. The fact that the outer wall of the center is white and that Witte de With should be called Witte de With (his nickname was also 'double white') probably didn't help either. (Bert Wagendorp, de Volkskrant, code 1:197)

The process of acknowledging contemporary race inequality is further approached through the notion of power. In this sense, the argument is made that the dominant structure of power should be radically rejected. In relation to the ‘Witte de With’ debate, this results in exclusion of the current ruling people with power. Let’s clarify this by the following quote:

Black's problem with the work? Schutz [the creator] is white. He therefore is not entitled to 'appropriate' historical black suffering. The painting must be broken, because the artist is of the wrong race. American conditions? You would think so… But then Witte de With, the art institution in Rotterdam: a group of activists from 'black and non-black people of color' not only demands a name change, but also the resignation of the staff, because they are unable to actively submit on a black revolutionary agenda', something that Witte de With desperately needs. Subtext: they have the wrong skin color. (Pieter van Os, de Groene Amsterdammer, code 1459).

By using racism as argument to contest the name of WdW, the element of populism is introduced as a mean to approach the debate. As previously described, populism is a process that “pits a virtuous and homogeneous group of people against a set of elites and/or dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, 44 identity and voice” (Albertazzi & McDonnell, 2008, p. 3). When connecting the concept of populism to racism within the context of this current research, a clear virtuous and homogeneous group of people can be established which is in a power position as they do not experience any disadvantages based on their race. ‘The others’ are the group of people who criticize this dominant group and challenge the existence of their hegemonic powers. Cultural critics want to create social inclusion of minority groups by (re)establishing their dominant position and hereby attempt to deprive the sovereign people of their rights/advantages. Therefore in this scenario, cultural critics are considered to be populists. However, as will be explained further on in this chapter, this claim to social inclusion actually seems to have the effect opposite effect of dichotomization of social space through thinking in ‘us’ and ‘them’ with the oppositional position of the culture guards. The following quote clearly presents the influence of race on the WdW debate as underlying power relations effect how people approach the debate and how it causes dichotomization in ‘us’ and ‘them’.

Barryl Biekman, the chairwoman of the National Platform for Dutch Slavery Past, told you that you are a scientist and not a descendant of a slave, and therefore you have no right to make claims about racism. ‘That is not how it works. Can only someone from the Middle Ages investigate that period or only write a Chinese about Chinese history?’ (Frans van den Berg, Noordhollands Dagblad, code 1488).

From this quote the question arises, who actually causes dichotomization? With their arguments people from both oppositional parties, the culture guards and culture critics, give rise to dichotomization. Culture guards when they refuse to be inclusive and hence maintain separate worlds. And culture critics, when they refuse to take a collective approach.

The culture guard People who defend the name use of Witte de With, disconnected the debate from arguments of race/racism by arguing that it is not an element of this specific debate. This is argued by providing proof to refute the race argument, as is done in the following quote based upon historical facts.

So the coffee with sugar, which was served in fine Chinese porcelain in well-to-do families in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was paid for with both black and white human lives, and shows that the value of all human lives in the old days was much lower than today , regardless of skin color. (Piet Emmer , Trouw, code 1468).

This example clearly focusses on the historical content of the debate. However, another manner in which the debate is disconnected from issues of racism, is by focussing on the contemporary development of the debate and external social forces. For example, the comment below illustrates how someone claims that people/the debate answers to the claim of race because of its sensitivity to society: 45

This public art institution in Rotterdam bows in advance to a few black activists. Of course, the lack of backbone of the board is deeply sad. I did not yet knew the term "professional angily" [beroepsbozen] used by Van Schoonhoven and would like to nominate it as word of the year. (J.P. Visser, Elsevier Weekblad, code 1399)

Another writes also considers race to be disconnected from the ‘Witte de With’ debate and puts it in perspective, which (as is done within the element of time) eliminates the claim of race as is can always be worse.

The debate has indeed become more fierce. I thought we would be more down to earth than this. But even though we are a very happy population, there is a great need to be a victim. It is enigmatic. People complain about everything. Look, we would not invent Black Pete nowadays and it will disappear. It has little to do with racism. If you look at dangerous racism in Europe, you will end up in Nazi Germany. (Unknown, Noordhollands Dagblad, code 1485)

Bahram Sadeghi, who had the moderating role in the debate, replied that the name of that tunnel or a street is far less important to him than the agent who puts him aside when he drives out of the tunnel, on the street. With which he wanted to indicate: ethnic profiling and discrimination on the labor market are much more important than the symbolic meaning of a name or image. (Roelf Jan Duin, Het Parool, code 1425)

Additionally, the argument that issues of race inequality would not be applicable to the Witte de With debate, are motivated by a second argument that the Netherlands is inclusive to its (ethnic) diversity. “The sharp campaigns against racism also affect the cultural institutions. Diversity is not enough: revolutionary action is required.” (Koen Kleijn, de Groene Amsterdammer, code 1:18). Remarkable, within this type of argument from the position of the cultural critic, is the incorporation of the domino theory by Hilhorst & Hermes (2016, p. 225). The data presents a line of reasoning based on fear or anxiousness and linked to racial matters, which can be described as: “if we allow this… all sorts of other things will be taken from us as well”. We see this reasoning reflected in the following two quotes: “Artists from Rotterdam want to get rid of the 'anti-black' 17th-century navel officer Witte de With as the name giver of their institution. If that is the start of a wittedewithisation of the Netherlands, there is still something waiting for us” (Olaf Tempelman, de Volkskrant, code: 1:159)

Witte de With is not only suspected because of the name, but also because it is a white institution that, according to the collected indigenes, has shown by the choice of name alone that it wants to

brush away the cruel past. Once people see ghosts, they usually get bigger and bigger. (Unknown, de Volkskrant, code 1:199)

There is no explicit expressions of racism by the culture guards. However, there is a fear of elimination of Dutch culture by different opinions. This actually indicates, that indeed the current Dutch culture might be less inclusive as the cultural critique argues. This state of unawareness of the element of race, would confirm the argument of the cultural critics about white privilege and strengthens the effect of underlying systems of power relations.

The narrator The arguments of the narrator aim to implement critique in the contemporary accomplishments of heritage. Hence, based upon cultural criticism which challenges the current cultural system, the narrator is open to changing cultural symbols and traditions. Herewith they actually aim for the process of social construction and negotiation that define how we actually think and act. Talking about rethinking cultural systems, a narrator participant to the debate said:

In these turbulent times, where we often talk about acceptance of others, with all their peculiarities and shortcomings, it is good to be first and foremost based on what we all did not do well before. Only it is rather rigorous and counterproductive to translate this sentiment into a new iconoclasm. (Özcan Akyol, AD, code 1:221)

5.3.3 Moral arguments Within their letter of protest, project Cinema Olanda motivated their intentions for rejection of the name ‘Witte de With’ based upon moral grounds. Within news articles people referred to these motivations and also responded with moral arguments. Moral arguments contest patterns of behaviour and reasoning, such as intentions, decisions and actions, on moral grounds by asking the question: what is the proper thing to do? These arguments involved the previous presented subjects of inclusiveness, equality and justification for the suppressed. This shows that the three used frames are very much intertwined and therefore do not operate in a vacuum. Against this background of the other two frames, the essential and returning question is: what is the right thing to do? This process occurs on two levels: first, by statements that express rethinking history, or arguments that that contested whether the (historical) content of the narrative is good/bad. And second, by expressed reconsideration or arguments about the contemporary approach to this historical content. A moral dimension, essential to why the name was contested in the first place, became almost inseparable from the debate. This thinking in good or bad, is often connected to a feeling of pride and shame towards the name. Or as one of the writers states: “History as a moral checkpoint, as something you should be either proud or ashamed of.” (Joost de Vries,

Groene Amsterdammer, code 1:414). Within this reasoning by morality, people seem to search for a balance between objective elements through the presentation of facts, and subjective elements through personal interpretation. Historical elements often function as ‘the objective’ as a foundation for a subjective inetrpretation, as comes forward in the next statement: "Witte Corneliszoon De With was a phenomenal unscrupulous opportunist, who did not act for nationalistic or religious reasons, but purely for personal honor and gain. End of discussion. Do you really want to maintain a visible link with that?” (Koen Kleijn, de Groene Amsterdammer, code 132). As can also be seen in this statement, moral arguments are often strongly intertwined with other arguments. The connectedness of the explicit use of history emerged already in the previous quote. The next quote presents a more implicit connection between morality and time within an interpretation of the discussion. “In a new age, no one from an old time gets carte blanche. The successors of Witte de With will experience it themselves.” (Olaf Tempelman, de Volkskrant, code 1:162).

The cultural critic In relation to evaluation of the (historical) content of the discussion, the cultural critic argues that this content cannot be justified. Acts of trade, colonialism and national expansion at the expense of other nations, are by definition labelled as morally incorrect. For these reason the cultural critic argues that the name ‘Witte de With’ should be used no longer. The contemporary approach to this historical narrative is considered to exclude people, as it does not represents a certain part of the historical narrative. Within this critique to the contemporary approach, the institute WdW is often taken as an example or the core subject of the article. The cultural critic argues that the historical charged name is not in line with the ideology of the institute. Therefore it would be incorrect to bare it. By linking the moral argument to the ideology of the institute, the organizational approach of WdW becomes a mean for the discussion. Hence the arguments that relate to the institute WdW bare a strong organizational aspect. The following quote of Kees Weeda, chairman of the Supervisory Board of WdW, clearly presents this moral struggle, from within the institute. “‘We then wondered whether our institution should bear a name that a large group of people feels insulted by,’ says Weeda. ‘They feel offended. We want to be an institution that is open to everyone.’" (Nadia Berkelder , Het Parool, 1:104).

The cultural guard As presented before, the cultural guard eliminates contemporary interpretations of historical acts through the notion of time and history of mentalities. In relation to the moral arguments, the cultural guard argues in the same line of reasoning: you cannot apply moral conceptions of today, to moments of the past. Hence their stand is that historical content is not improper as it fits the moral good thing to do from that specific historical time period. This attitude simoulaniously presents how this position uses 48 moral arguments to contest the contemporary approach to this historical content. As the following quote shows, culture guards argue that no repercussions to these historical acts are needed as they lie in the past. “A shared history is the cement of a society. This includes a canon. You cannot rewrite this every time by applying the moral frameworks of today to moments of the past. What we find a virtue today, may be reprehensible in a century.” (Hans van Soest, AD, code 1:186) Alike the culture critics, the culture guards also focus on the organizational approach of WdW. Within this focus they present a clear judgement of the position the organization takes. Labels as ‘being ashamed’ and ‘weak’ are used by people arguing from the position of the culture guard. They, in general, interpret acts of the institution to research the claimed critiques as giving in to activists. Hereby they eliminate any possible intention to self-reflection.

The culture narrators According to the narrators, the morally correct thing to do is to incorporate different moral values over time in the contemporary historical narrative and thereby create awareness in order to emancipate. Based on the following statement a cultural narrator builds up to this stand as he argues to be inclusive in the contemporary approach and learn from our history. “The world is not black and white, good-bad. And that wasn't the past either. It is intellectually lazy to suggest that. And it is intolerant to remove everything that is unpleasant to you from the streets.” (Unknown, AD, code 1:189)

5.3.4 Other findings Besides the three main presented frames, a range of other less dominant, however equally important arguments were presented of which the categories political correctness and the previous presented domino theory are most remarkable.

5.3.4A Political correctness the issue of political correctness was recurrent within the data in various ways. First, as it indicates a line between what people can and can’t be say about the (sensitive) subject of the name change, very closely related to the experience of the freedom of speech. And second, political correctness as always choosing the proper thing to do. These two are very much intertwined. Interestingly, 80% of the arguments of political correctness, came from cultural guards, all right-wing politicians. They used the term to label the claims of the cultural critics (and the related social movement to decolonize society). With this they stigmatize the cultural critics, as part of a political game to eliminate the oppositional party. Besides, these culture guards express that there is a constant pressure to act political correct and that removing the name of Witte de With, is considered to be limiting the freedom of speech. The following quote summarizes this argument by stating that:

Many Dutch people have the feeling that they have to be carefull what they say: you can't even say what you think in this country. Even worse, you can no longer even think what you think. It is strange that a miniscule minority group of colored opponents apparently gives so many people the feeling that they can no longer speak freely. (Abram Swaan, De Groene Amsterdammer, code 1:404)

Some culture guards extend this limitation to a political level and argue that is can be seen as a threat to national democracy or present political repercussions, such as the following: “Hoogwerf wants subsidies to be stopped immediately if the name is changes under pressure from such politically correct groups.” (Unknown, Metro, unit 13). Narrators argue in the same line as culture guards as they state that it is better to maintain the name in order to keep the conversation about the good and bad sides of history flowing. From the position of the culture critic, only one participant incorporates the notion of political correctness when arguing that the name Witte de With should be changed. As a counterreaction to the arguments by the cultural guards, Martine Gosselink, employee of the Rijksmuseum provides an example from her own work environment. With this, she argues that one person’s political correctness, is another person’s sign of progress. To her, political correctness does not per definition limit people, it can also have a liberating effect. Besides, she argues that prominent institutions as Witte de With and the Rijksmuseum, should take lead in these processes of cultural change.

‘The criticism from outside is more raw. When the museum announced the adaptation of the text plates, some immediately frowned how politically correct it was. Then I think: the Rijksmuseum is pre- eminently the place where you have to be politically correct. Not that you embellish or obscure things, but that you stick to the facts. In twenty years, we think it is quite normal that nobody uses the word 'nigger' anymore, just as nobody expects you to smoke in a plane.’ (Martine Gosselink quoted by Bas Blokker, NRC, Unit 68).

5.3.4B Domino thinking The domino theory, as previously presented by the literature of Hilhorst & Hermes (2016), already slightly came forewared within the presentation of the three frames and positions in the WdW debate. However, duo to its recurrence and the value its seems to have for participants to the debate, its is considered important to elaborate on it more into depth. Domino thinking is mostly presented by culture guards. As they want to hold on to historical and cultural content and their manners of acting on it, they present the argument that ‘the end is near’ to loose this shared history and culture if one gives in to change. Hence it represents a fear that eventually Dutch culture has to compromise. Taking this domino effect to the extreme, this group introduces the term ‘wittedewithisation’ in order to address a possible domino effect stemming from the Witte de With debate (e.g. ‘wittedewithisering’, code 1:159). The presented domino

50 thinking by the culture guards often goes with a certain sarcastic approach, as in the following quotes: “I am surprised that the great scholar Desiderius Erasmus has not yet been removed from his pedestal. Rotterdam is still the proud owner of his statue, situated on the Grotekerkplein in the city of the Maas. It has been in that city since 1622, but you can wonder if the monument has not had its best days.“ (Jan van Klinken, Reformatirisch Dagblad, code 1:287). “By the way, I still have my reservations about Pippi’s father, who was a pirate and incited his daughter into reckless acts. Perhaps more about that if Sweden wants to turn all Pippi schools into ABBA-skeule-institøts.” (Paul de Leeuw, AD, code 1:301). As becomes clear in these quotes, the aim (and possibly also the effect) of this sarcastic approach, is to eliminate the stressed urgency for culture change in the WdW matter by the culture critics. On the other end of the spectrum, culture critics present domino thinking by placing contemporary denial of the urgency of cultural change, in a canon of previous denial and blindness. Besides, the domino theory also came forward from people who applied (components of) the debate to other contexts as people expressed fear that the debate would spread (e.g. to other cities with similar historically charged street names), as one writer states: “Now that in Rotterdam the attack on the past has started again, emeritus professor Piet Emmer speaks of "an iconoclasm". According to him, "the end is lost, we are lost" with the new politically correct movement. "call streets after flowers and plants, you can't fall for that.” (Unknown, Telegraaf, Unit 16). On the other hand, the data also showed that this system of domino thinking had the effect of reflection with its participants. Mediawriters showed introspection towards other contexts, caused by the Witte de With issue. The comment below illustrates how writers apply the considerations of the Witte de With debate, to the contexts of Amsterdam and Rotterdam.

It does not require a trained eye to spot the references to the colonial past in the center of Amsterdam. When you pay attention to it, there are more references than you initially would think. The Bantammer Bridge over the Geldersekade, named after an Indonesian province. The plaque of VOC sailor Henry Hudson on the Schreierstoren. Or the opposite Scheepvaarthuis, which houses a statue of Jan Pieterszoon Coen, along with dozens of other sea heroes. But how heroic were these historical figures when you put them along the moral scale of today? (Roelf Jan Duin, het Parool, code 1:423)

Dordrecht also has a Witte de Withstraat and even a entire neighborhood is named after historical heroes. These names have incorporated quite some historical ‘mistakes’. Dordrecht also has two neighborhoods with street names that could be directly related to the colonial past. (Jaap Bouman, AD, Code 1:421)

Altogether the presentation of domino thinking with the participants to the Witte de With debate, indicates some sort of reasons that lie beyond the ‘how?’ question, as they seem to address the ‘why?’ question on the contested name.

6 Conclusion and discussion The aim of the present research was to examine in what ways the name of Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art is contested in Dutch media content. On several levels, the research found answers to this question. To begin with, the news content of articles on the WdW debate is influenced on three levels. First, on the individual level by personal attitudes, values, beliefs, professional roles of mediawriters. Second, on the extramedia level, by external influences such as interest groups or other media organizations. And third, on the ideological level, by dominant ideologies in the Dutch society which influence the media content content on the discussion. When analyzing the data set, two events on the extramedia level appear of be influential to the publication of news articles on the Witte de With debate: (1) the first elaborated news article, which has the WdW controversy as a news scoop. This scoop is rapidly is taken up on by other media, causing the first peak in published articles. And (2) the rather outspoken reaction by the city of Urk, taking a stand as culture guards, which causes a second peak in published articles. In between these peaks, the amount of published articles is quite equally distributed over the time frame. When having a closer look at the developments of the debate, the first thing that becomes clear, is the interaction between the initial involved parties: the people that cooperated with WdW for the Cinema Olanda project, and WdW the institution itself. In this conversation first party presents their critical view in relation to the name of the institution. A conversation is initiated by this first party, in which they presents their critical view in relation to the name of the institution. This critical view evolves into an attitude that by (activist characterized) statements aims to achieve both a name change and changes within the organization and society. In reaction to the claims of this group of people, WdW takes an active position in exploring their arguments. When both parties have published an official statement online, the media picks up upon the discussion and the debate is taken into the public sphere. Besides these two main parties, also other people entered the debate and with their participation influenced its discourse. Moreover, this shows which people are valuated to have an opinion about the matter. To begin with, some local citizens from Rotterdam, specifically from the Witte de With district, were asked for their opinion on the matter. Additionally, from the local context, an active participant is the right-wing political party Leefbaar Rotterdam, and their councilor Tanya Hoogerwerf who seems to be the party spokesperson in reaction to the WdW case. Furthermore, historians appear to be valued as important informers on the debate as they are repeatedly quoted, interviewed or referred to. This is also seen with people who actively operate in the field of the arts, such as artists. Finally, in relation to framing the debate as a matter of social inequality professionals specialized matters as decolonization, racism or social studies are at word. Aiming at the analysis through coding, this study found that there are three stands taken within this public debate: (1) ‘culture critics,’ in their role as iconoclasts, explicitly state that the name should no

52 longer be used; (2) ‘culture guards, protecting the use of the name and aiming to maintain it; (3) ‘culture narrators’, who want to maintain the use of the name however, aim to create a more broad and nuanced awareness about its historical roots by changing the narrative. The data showed that these three positions, dominantly used three types of arguments to defend their point of view (1) historical arguments; (2) arguments of social critique; and (3) moral arguments. The content of these three frames is used interchangeable and their construction therefore does not happen in a vacuum. The historical arguments were used in two manners. First, in an explicit manner through the use of historical information that contest the name. Second, in an implicit manner by presenting arguments that are built upon time related processes which elaborated on the debate. Remarkable within this type of argument was the recurrent mentioning that history cannot be reversed. With this argument, culture guards made their claim to remain the name. In opposition to this stand, the cultural critic argued that people should acknowledge the black pages of history, by eliminating the glorification of the written ones (which are an expression of white privilege). It is within the space between the negotiations of the culture critics and guards that the narrator steps in with the argument to be inclusive to different historical narratives with the overall aim to make cultural progress. In addition to the historical arguments, social critiques were expressed to contest the name of WdW through two types. First, participants to the debate labelled others as ignorant in order to eliminate dissenting voices and defend their own stand within the debate. The label of ignorance was applied by all three positions an often was interpreted as an attitude that goes beyond the boundaries of this specific debate. It is seen as a general attitude towards social matters. Within the data, the culture critics addressed a certain ‘blindness’ amongst people who do not acknowledge their critique that the historical acts are ‘wrong’. On the other hand, culture guards claim that people cannot be ignorant towards their own history, and therefore should not erase its signs. (Even though culture critics might interpret this in the opposite way), within this argument, culture guards do not explicitly aim for exclusion of people. Arguments presented within this line of reasoning, focus on protection of a (shared) historical narrative that build a (shared) country. Cultural narrators follow the same line of reasoning as the culture guards, by arguing that people cannot be ignorant towards their own history. However, whereas the cultural guards conclude that they should hold on to their cultural heritage, symbols and traditions, the narrators transform this argument in a more inclusive solution as they aim to incorporate the acknowledgement of ‘the neglected’ into their approach. Mainly through providing extra information and creating awareness. The second type of social critique that is expressed in the data, are arguments motivated by of inequality. As inequality within society is tied up with specific groups, race was directly connected to this argument. It can be stated that the Witte de With debate became a mean through which the this battle was performed. The argument of ‘race’, is mostly used by culture critics in order to criticize contemporary social patterns that underly and maintain heritage, such as the name ‘Witte de With. Within, the power

53 positions are challenged through for example references to white privilege and contemporary forms of racial segregation. It is argued that by the continuing (white) privileged positions, people do not recognise and acknowledge the dominant Dutch narrative and hence deny suppression of people from certain racial backgrounds. To these cultural critics, Witte de With is a clear symbol of this social disbalance, and hence should be completely eliminated. The culture guards, only present counter reactions to this line of reasoning by providing historical arguments that refute the oppositional argument of race. It could be argued that this non-reflective approach of the culture guards, is a product of white-privilege itself. The social critique arguments, as used by the participants, shows a certain social pressure that is experienced in connected to the debate. The third category of arguments finds its roots in morality. These arguments address the “good and bad” or “right and wrong” both in relation to the historical content/acts, and contemporary approaches on the public debate. A moral dimension, essential to why the name was contested in the first place, became almost inseparable from the debate as a moral negotiation is initiated as soon as someone enters the discussion by defending an opinion. Within this reasoning by morality, people searched for a balance between objective elements through the presentation of facts, and subjective elements through personal interpretation. The most striking finding to emerge from the argument of moral considerations, is the ‘political correct’ argument. The culture guards labelled the oppositional thinkers, as political correct. Nevertheless, it tells equally as much about themselves. Using the term in this sense, people actually say that they don’t like the political correctness, as they don’t like to be criticized and they don’t want to change. Hence, these people do not want to change the dominant patterns in behaviour and society. Therefore, within the context of this research, the use of the term political correctness, relates to the power dimension in the debate as dominant structures are being challenged. This study has identified that when contesting the name of WdW, the three stands of the culture critics, culture guards and the narrators, all included the dominant arguments of history, social critique and morality. The findings have shown that for all of them historical arguments were most used, followed by the arguments of social critique and the moral arguments. Additionally, it can be said that within their presentation, the positions of the culture critic and culture guard, clearly take oppositional stands. Whereas the critic makes a clear claim on the content of the historically charged name, the guard holds on to the meaning of the form. The narrators take a ‘middle’ position in which they offer compromises and fulfil a mediation function in the debate when it comes to the content of the discussion.

6.1 Connection to literature Reflecting on the presented literature, the arguments of the culture critics, have a clear activist dimension which is in line with the Dutch (and European) canon of decolonization (Duara, 2004; Beus de, 2001; Raben, 2013; Jones, 2012). This connection is also reflected in the data as it is extensively placed against

54 the backdrop of broader and more general social developments. Placing the Witte de With debate against broader social developments, is done by cultural critics and narrators in order to give power to the necessity of cultural change. Placing the Witte de With discussion within broader social developments, provides them with a certain context in order to make meaning of this specific discussion. Additionally, the Witte de With debate is connected to a range of other current public debates. Similar issues such as the destruction of historical statues or decolonisation within museums, were repeatedly referred to in order to strengthen the arguments that contest the ‘Witte de With’ name. By connecting the Witte de With issue to other issues, people often presented the domino theory as presented by Hilhorst & Hermes (2016). This line of thinking was mostly expressed by the cultural guards, stemming from the fear that eventually the Dutch culture has to compromise. Taking this domino effect to the extreme, this group introduces the term ‘wittedewithisation’ in order to address a possible domino effect stemming from the Witte de With debate (‘wittedewithisering’, code 1159). The domino theory also came forward from people who applied (components of) the debate to other contexts. On the one hand people expressed fear that the debate would spread (e.g. to other cities with similar historically charged street names). As the literature stated, the concept of national identity evokes different responses with people, as they identify themselves differently and to different elements in relation to their nation state (Sarrasin, Green & Fasel, 2016; Verkuyten, 2009). Taking in consideration that the more complex and differentiated a society becomes, the more potential groupings can develop which increases possible friction between groups, also in relation to how to perceive national identity (Avruch, 2009; Spencer-Oatey, 2012). The Witte de With case seems to confirm that conflict across cultural boundaries may occur simultaneously at many different levels. This research confirms this expectation as the data provided people involved in the debate from different backgrounds (e.g. official and unofficial media writers, different cultural backgrounds, different professionals expressed and were referred to, different political angles were presented). Hence, a singular Dutch national identity and culture is challenged as within the debate people negotiate which cultural content should be included in a shared national heritage. Further reviewing the previous presented literature, a strong relationship with this study appears to the concept of patriotism. Whereas the culture guards can be considered to be ‘blind patriots’ as they feel highly connected to the motherland, and show an unquestioning and uncritical loyalty to the nation and its acts (Sarrasin, Green & Fasel, 2016). Also interesting, is the ‘middle’ position of the narrator, which almost takes sort of a mediator role. The essence of the position of the narrator, is focussed on emancipation of people by means of gaining knowledge and inclusivity. Hence, inclusion of (historical) information, inclusion of opinions, with the aim to include this in a solution to the debate. This relation between the three positions also became clear trough the interactions in the articles. The tendency was discovered, that often culture critics first posted their claims (or newspapers reported on the claims of the critics), followed by a counterreaction of the cultural guards, and ‘shushed’ by the call from the

55 narrators. As the narrators take a more constructive and inclusive approach to the debate but still want to maintain the name, they can be considered as ‘constructive patriots’ which by Sarrasin, Green & Fasel (2016) are characterized by a critical loyalty to the nation, accompanied by the desire to change its criticized aspects (out of love for the nation). Based on the findings of this research in connection to the literature, it is expected that the same three positions will hold in relation to broader/similar developments of changing content of Dutch national identity as a social construct. Which synchronizes with the occurring dichotomization of social space in ‘us’ and a ‘them’ is an occurrence which can be nourished by the notion of nationalism (van Reekum, 2016). Nevertheless, it can also be argued that the cultural critics, who are not labelled at patriots or nationalists, can cause dichotomization. It seems that the opposite effects from their aims are reached. Nowhere in the data they state to want more attention for the matters they address. They clearly state to have the aim to fight inequality. However, their rather radical approach leads to strong (emotional) reactions. It could be stated that this is breaking with taboos, however that it also feeds the dichotomization of social space through populism.

6.2 Methods The previous presented results were established through the method of content analysis. The use of this method had a dual effect on this study. On the positive side, the flexible and character of the method created opportunities to review the wide variety of arguments used in the data. It prevented exclusion of important information which prior to the analysis was unexpected (such as the findings on of political correctness). However, simultaneously this flexibility without any strict systematic rules for analysing data sometimes within the bulk of data, led to an overwhelming amount of codes to be categorized in groups. Regarding the methodological operationalization processes, as qualitative content analysis is built upon personal interpretations, it is almost impossible to establish coding manuals that do not entail some interpretation on the part of coders (Bryman, 2012). Also within this research, categorized codes were established based upon the personal interpretation of a singular researcher, which could have a limited effect on the findings and the performed analysis itself. Therefore the inter-coder reliability of this research could be weak. Another limitation of this research lies in the representativeness of the used data sources. Within the process of reporting on events, media writers function as gatekeepers as they selectively (re)present certain elements of information in their stories. They do not however, represent (the opinion of) the entire population. Therefore this research only provides a limited understanding on how Dutch people position themselves in relation to the Witte de With case. Furthermore, It appears to be difficult to ascertain the answers to ‘why?’ questions through content analysis. This is indeed mirrored by this research as its results are limited to the ‘how?’ question and do not touch upon the underlying ‘why?’.

6.3 Contributions and further research This thesis has provided a deeper insight into the specific case of the public debate on the name use of Witte de With. The findings of this research contribute to our understanding of how people either want to maintain or reject cultural elements and hence provide a contribution to possible answers to these matters of cultural conflict. Furthermore, based on its findings this research answers to, and points out the, urgency of studying cultural conflicts. The presented arguments within the data (categorised by the themes of historical, moral, social critical), indicate some sort of experienced crisis in relation to contemporary approaches to Dutch culture. A crisis on both a national and individual level, and influenced by global developments. As this is a hot topic, negotiation on these matters reveal initiated cultural change through increasing attention and awareness for these matters and possible changes in perception. As cultural change is a rather slow and gradual process, monitoring of these processes contributes to progress and bares an informative function, which is of great value in contemporary times (Spencer- Oatey, 2012). While this study provided valuable insights into how people contest the name Witte de With as a matter of cultural conflict, it simultaneously points to interesting areas for future research. To begin with, this research solely focused on printed media of traditional news sources. However, with the increasing importance of new-media, analyses of web-based content (such as Facebook pages or Twitter messages) could be equally interesting. Additionally, due to limitations in time and expenses, this research was confined to study the ‘how’ question within the specific case of the WdW debate. Further research could apply other methods, such as interviewing, in order to establish a more in-depth insight into the reasoning and motivation behind this research established positions and arguments. Hence, following from this research on the ‘how?’ question, it would be most interesting to study the underlying ‘why?’ question which might be force behind the results of this current study. Researching what motivates people to contest culture from certain positions, would provide opportunities to prevent and react on situations of cultural conflict. Besides studying underlying forces, the act of framing itself is also seen as a force which could be studied. It is hoped that this exploratory study will help generate hypotheses for future studies examining the effects of framing cultural conflicts on public opinion. Furthermore, based on the argument of political correctness, and the active role of the right-wing political party Leefbaar Rotterdam, it would be interesting to study a connection between matters of cultural change and politics. Finally, and most importantly, although this research focused on the case of Witte de With only, I believe that because of its urgency on a broader level, expanding beyond this case could lead to even more interesting findings and eventually to a more fruitful foundation for answers to these matters.

Reference List A Ahmed, S. (2004). Affective economies. Social Text, Vol. 22:2, 117–139. Albertazzi, D., & McDonnell, D. (2008). Twenty-First Century Populism: The spectre of Western European democracy. Palgrave Macmillan: Hampshire Altheide, D. L. (1996). Qualitative media analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso Books. Avruch, K. (2009). Cross-Cultural Conflict. In K. E. Hipel (Eds.), Conflict Resolution. Washington, DC: Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (Eolss) Publishers Co

B Bauman, Z. (2007). Liquid Times: Living in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press

Bechhofer, f., & McCrone, D. (2009). National Identity, Nationalism and Constitutional Change. Retrieved from: https://www.macmillanihe.com/resources/sample-chapters/9780230551343_sample.pdf Beckett, K. (1996). Culture and the politics of signification: The case of child sexual abuse. Social Problems, 43, 57–76. Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven: Yale UP. Bergman S (director) (2014). Our Colonial Hangover (Motion Picture). Amsterdam: De Familie Film & TV. Berns, G., & Atran, S. (2012). The biology of cultural conflict. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. Vol. 367, 633-639. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0307 Betz, H.-G. (2002) Conditions favoring the success and failure of radical right-wing populist parties in contemporary democracies, in: Y. Me´ ny & Y. Surel (Eds) Democracies and the Populist Challenge, pp. 197–213 (New York: Palgrave). Betz, H. G. and Johnson, C. (2004). Against the Current – Stemming the Tide: the Nostalgic Ideology of the Contemporary Radical Populist Right, Journal of Political Ideologies 9(3), 311−27. Binder, A., M., Y. (2016). Constructing Racial Rhetoric: Media Depictions of Harm in Heavy Metal and Rap Music, 58(6), 753–767. Boczkowski, P., J. (2002). The development and use of online newspapers: What research tells us and what we might want to know. In Lievrouw, L., & Livingstone, S. (Eds), The Handbook of New Media (London: Sage Publications). Boer-Dirks, E. (1993). Nieuw licht op Zwarte Piet. Een kunsthistorisch antwoord op de vraag naar de herkomst van Zwarte Piet. Volkskundig bulletin, 19, 1-35. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualtative Research Journal, 9(no.2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/qrj0902027 Brubaker, R., & Laitin, D. (1998). Ethnic and Nationalist Violence. Annual Review of Sociology 24, 423- 452. Retrieved from https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.423 Bruns, A., & Highfield, T. (2015). Is Habermas on Twitter?: Social media and the public sphere. London: Routledge. Butt, d. (2013). Colonialism and Postcolonialism. In Hugh LaFollette (eds.), The International Encyclopaedia of Ethics (Wiley-Blackwell, 2013). Burns, Alex. (2010) “Oblique Strategies for Ambient Journalism.” M/C Journal 13(2). http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/230 58

Burnhard, P. (1991). A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research. Nurse Education Today, 11, 461–466.

C Canovan, M. (1999) Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy. Political Studies, 47(1), pp. 2–16. Castells, Manuel. (2009) Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford UP. Carragee, K. M., & Roefs, W. (2004). The Neglect of Power in Recent Framing Research. Journal of Communication, Volume 54, Issue 2, 214–233, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460- 2466.2004.tb02625.x Cavanagh, S. (1997). Content analysis: concepts, methods and applications. Nurse Researcher, 4, 5–16. City Council of Rotterdam (2017). Beantwoording van vragen van het raadslid T.C. Hoogwerf (Leefbaar Rotterdam) over Besmeuren zeeheld Witte de With door weg-met-ons-cultuurbobo’s. Retrieved from: https://rotterdam.notubiz.nl/document/5745097/1/s17bb007894_4_30812_tds Cunningham, Stuart. (2001) “Popular Media as Public ‘Sphericules’ for Diasporic Communities.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 4(2): 131-47.

D Dahlgren, Peter. (2009) Media and Political Engagement: Citizens, Communication, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge UP De Beus, J. (2001). God dekoloniseert niet. Een kritiek op de Nederlandse geschiedschrijving over de neergang van Nederlands-Indië en Nederlands Suriname. BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review. Vol. 116:3, pp. 307 - 324 DiAngelo, R. (2011). White Fragility. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(3). Duara, p. (2004). Decolonization: Perspectives from Now and Then. Routledge: London

E Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward a clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.

F Ferguson, B. (2005). Tribal Warfare and Ethnic Conflict. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/31152970/Tribal_Warfare_and_Ethnic_C onflict.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1553712515&Signature=7iJJ9 %2BTcHtdPszMhqVL5htjKW%2F0%3D&response-content- disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DTribal_Warfare_and_Ethnic_Conflict.pdf Fearon, J., D. (1999). WHAT IS IDENTITY (AS WE NOW USE THE WORD)? Department of Political Science, Stanford University. Retrieved from: https://web.stanford.edu/group/fearon-research/cgi- bin/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/What-is-Identity-as-we-now-use-the-word-.pdf Fox, N.J. (2004) Qualitative Data Analysis: HAR6010. (Taught unit from msc in Health and Social Care Research). Sheffield: University of Sheffield.

G Gamson, W., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse as a symbolic contest: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1–37. Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation Of Cultures: Selected essays by Clifford Geertz. Basic Books, Inc., 59

Publishers: New York. Ghorashi, H. (2017). Negotiating belonging beyond rootedness: unsettling the sedentary bias in the Dutch culturalist discourse. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40:14, 2426-2443. DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2016.1248462 Gillis, J. (ed.) (1994), Commemorations, The Politics of National Identity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press). Gitlin, Todd. (1998) “Public Sphere or Public Sphericules?” In T. Liebes and J. Curran, eds. Media, Ritual and Identity. London: Routledge, 175-202. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gray, C. (2010). Analysing cultural policy: incorrigibly plural or ontologically Incompatible? International Journal of Cultural Policy , 16 (2), 215-230. DOI: 10.1080/10286630902935160 Gripsrud, J., Moe, H., Molander, A., & Murdock, G. (eds.). (2010). The idea of the public sphere: A reader. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

H Hall, S. (1980). Cultural studies: two paradigms. Media, Culture and Society, 2, 57-72. DOI: 10.1177/016344378000200106 Hall, S. (1982). The Rediscovery of 'Ideology': Return of the Repressed in Media Studies. Culture, Society, and the Media, edited by M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran, and J. Woollacott. London, England: Methuen. P. 56-90 Hall, S. (1990). Cultural Identity and Diaspora. In Identity: Community, Culture, Difference, edited by J. Rutherford, 222–237. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: The MIT Press. P. 1-56 Habermas, J. (2006). Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research. Communication Theory 16(4): 411-26. Hafez, K. 2000. The West and Islam in the mass media. Cornerstones for a new international culture of communication in the 21st century. Rheinische Friedrich Wilhelms-Universität Bonn. Hartley, John, & Joshua Green. (2006) The Public Sphere on the Beach. European Journal of Cultural Studies 9(3): 341-362. Harrison, R. (2013). Heritage: Critical Approaches. Routledge: London, United Kingdom Hawkins, K. (2009) Is Cha´ vez populist? Measuring populist discourse in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 42, pp. 1040–1067. Hayes, C., J., H. (2016). Nationalism: A Religion. Chapter 1. Transaction publishers: New Jersey. Helsloot J (2009). Is Zwarte Piet uit te leggen? In: Koops W, Pieper M and Boer E (eds) Sinterklaas verklaard. Amsterdam: SWP, pp.77–85. Helsloot J (2012). Zwarte piet and cultural aphasia in the Netherlands. Quotidian 3(1): 1–20. Hernández Chong Cuy, S. (n.d.). Tijdlijnen van een voorstel tot naamsverandering bij Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art. Retrieved from https://www.wdw.nl/nl/our_program/long_term/timelines_of_a_name_change_initiative_at_w itte_de_with_center_for_contemporary_art Hilhorst, S., & Hermes, J. (2016). We have given up so much: Passion and denial in the Dutch Zwarte Piet (Black Pete) controversy. European Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol. 19:3, 218 –233. Hsieh, H., F., & Shannon, S., E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative health research, Volume: 15 issue: 9, page(s): 1277-1288 60

Hofstede, G. (1994) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: Harper Collins Business. Horvath, R., J. (1972). A Definition of Colonialism. Current Anthropology. Vol. 13:1, pp. 45-57

I Ibrahim, D. Individual perceptions of international correspondents in the Middle East: an obstacle to fair news? Gazette 65 (1),87-101. Ignazi, P. (2003) Extreme Right Parties in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

J Jagers, J. (2007) De stem van het volk. Populisme als concept getest bij Vlaamse politieke partijen Antwerpen: Universiteit van Antwerpen Jouwe, N. (2015). Gevangen in een paradox: racisme in Nederland. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/41881225/Racisme_Paradox_NJ.pdf?res ponse-content- disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DGevangen_in_een_paradox_racisme_in_Neder.pdf&X- Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz- Credential=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%2F20190613%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X- Amz-Date=20190613T161100Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz- Signature=8e605a919124ade41d3cb1708ffd6b8a0452c3def6ac8199123cd41db8800366

K Kauff, M., Asbrock, F., Thorner, S., & Wagner, U. (2013). Side effects of multiculturalism: The interaction effect of a multicultural ideology and authoritarianism on prejudice and diversity beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 305-320. doi:10.1177/0146167212473160 Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Knaap, G. (2014). De ‘Core Business’ van de VOC: Markt, macht en mentaliteit vanuit overzees perspectief [Oration]. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht. Knaap, G. (2015). De Oorlog van de VOC en WIC: Gewapende kooplieden. Retrieved from https://www.historischnieuwsblad.nl/goudeneeuw/artikelen/de-oorlog-van-de-voc-en-wic.html

L Laclau E (2005). Populism: What’s in a name? In: Panazzi F (ed.) Populism and the Mirror of Democracy. London: Verso, pp.32–49. Lederman, R. P. (1991). Content analysis of word texts. MCN. The American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing, 16, 169. Lentin, A., & Titley, G. (2011). The Crises of Multiculturalism: Racism in a Neoliberal Age. New York: Zed Books. Lynch, J. (2001). Iraq, peace journalism and the construction of truth. Media development: The news

embargo on Iraq, 22-25.

Lichbach, M., I., & Zuckerman, A., S. (2009). Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. Camebridge University press: New York Loomba, A. (1998). Colonialism/postcolonialism. Routledge: London, United Kingdom Lorenz, C. (2015). De Nederlandse koloniale herinnering en de universele mensenrechten: De casus 61

‘Rawagede’. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI:10.5117/TVGESCH2015.1.LORE

M Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. (2013). Culture and psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Marglin, S. A. (2008) The Dismal Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G., B. (1999). Designing qualitative research. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications. Martina, E., A., Sno, R., Warsame, H., Schor, P., Alhaag, A., & Guggenbickler, M. (2017). Open letter to Witte de With. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeCz5ep2pGUvQNbuxYyn38aBLrSJy- PzZAjuwht5xPkY-vW_A/viewform McDowell, S. (2008) Heritage, memory and identity. In: The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity. (Eds: Graham, Brian and Howard, Peter), Ashgate, pp. 37-54. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5f8b/ba124029c6484c0c0251549a215fb599895b.pdf McGuigan, J. (2003). Cultural Policy Studies. In Lewis, J., & Miller, T. (Eds.), Critical Cultural Policy Studies A Reader (pp. 23-38). Cornwall: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Mesman, J., Janssen, S., & van Rosmalen, L. (2016). Black Pete through the Eyes of Dutch children. DOI:10.1371/ journal.pone.0157511 Meyerson, D., & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural Change: An integration of three different views. Journal of Management Studies, 24:6. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.462.1265&rep=rep1&type=pdf Miller, T., & Yúdice, G. (2002). Cultural Policy. London: SAGE Publication Ltd. Morrison, A. & Love, A. (1996) ‘A Discourse of Disillusionment: Letters to the Editor in Two Zimbabwean Magazines After Independence’, Discourse and Society 7: 39–75. Moshe, M. (2004). Between national and constitutional patriotism: framing financial patriotic discourse, Journalism Studies, 5:4, 497-509, DOI: 10.1080/14616700412331296428 Mudde, C. (2004) The Populist Zeitgeist, Government and Opposition, 39(4), pp. 542–563. Mulcahy, K. V. (2006). Cultural Policy: Definitions and Theoretical Approaches. The Journal of arts Management, Law and Society, 319-330. DOI: 10.3200/JAML.35.4.319-330 Murer, J., F. (2012). Ethnic Conflict: An Overview of Analyzing and Framing Communal Conflicts From Comparative Perspectives. Routledge: London

N Nagy-Sándor, Z., & Berkers, P. (2018). Culture, Heritage, Art: Navigating Authenticities in contemporary Hungarian Folk Singing. Cultural Sociology, Vol. 12(3) 400 –417. DOI: 10.1177/1749975518780770 Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS). (2018). Urk wil J.P. Coenstraat: Wie zonder zonde is, werpe de eerste steen. Retrieved from: https://nos.nl/artikel/2218572-urk-wil-j-p-coenstraat-wie-zonder- zonde-is-werpe-de-eerste-steen.html Nussbaum, M. (2012). The New Religious Intollerance: Overcoming the politics of fear in an anxious age. The Belknap Press of Harvard University PRess: Campbridge.

O Ouwens Nagell, E. 2006. Onderzoek naar de praktijkervaringen van de Midden-Oostencorrespondent en redacteur. Masterthesis. Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam/ Media & Journalistiek. P

Papacharissi, Z. A. (2010). A Private Sphere: Democracy in a Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity. (2015) Affective Publics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pond, p., & Lewis, J. (2019). Riots and Twitter: connective politics, social media and framing discourses in the digital public sphere, Information. Communication & Society, 22:2, 213-231, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1366539 R Raben, R. (2013). A New Dutch Imperial History?: Perambulations in a Prospective Field. BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review. Vol. 128:1, pp. 5-30 Reese, S. D., & Shoemaker, P. J. (2016) A Media Sociology for the Networked Public Sphere: The Hierarchy of Influences Model . Mass Communication and Society, Vol. 19:4, 389-410, DOI: 10.1080/15205436.2016.1174268 Richardson, J. E. (2001) ‘“Now is the Time to Put an End to All This”: Argumentative Discourse Theory and “Letters to the Editor” ’, Discourse & Society 12: 143–68. Roberts, J. (2016). Writing for Strategic Communication Industries. Ohio State University Libraries: Columbus Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., Halevy, N., & Eidelson, R. (2008). Towards a unifying model of identification with groups: Integrating theoretical perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 280–306. Ross, M. H. (2009). Culture in Comparative Political Analysis. In Lichbach, M., I., & Zuckerman, A., S. (Eds.), Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. Camebridge University press: New York

S Sarrasin, O., Green E., G., T., & Fasel, N. (2016). Critical views of the nation, national attachment, and attitudes toward immigrants in Switzerland. Chapter 10 London: Routledge. Schein, E. (1990) Organizational culture. American Psychologist 45(2): 109–119. Schein, E. (1983). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schinkel, W. 2007. Denken in een tijd van sociale hypochondrie, aanzet tot een theorie voorbij de maatschappij. Klement. Schneider, S., C., & Barsoux, J., L. (2003). Managing Across Cultures. Pearson Education Limited: Edinburgh Shoemaker, P & Reese, S. 1996. Mediating the message. Theories of influences on mass media content. New York: Longman Publishers USA. Slagmaat-Bos, W. (n.d.). Tijdlijn 2: Het leven en de tijd van Witte Corneliszoon de With (1599-1658). Retrieved from https://www.wdw.nl/nl/our_program/events/timeline_2_the_life_and_times_of_witte_cornelis zoon_de_with_1599_1658 Slootman, M. (2019). Ethnic-minority climbers: evaluating “minority cultures of mobility” as a lens to study Dutch minority student organizations. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 42:5, 838-856, DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2018.1467029 Snow, D., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S., & Benford, R. (1986). Frame Alignment Processes, Mobilization, and Movement Participation. American Sociological Review 51:464- 81. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008) Culturally Speaking. Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. 2nd edition. London: Continuum. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2012) What is culture? A compilation of quotations. GlobalPAD Core Concepts. Available at GlobalPAD Open House. 63

Taggart, P. (2000) Populism (Buckingham: Open University Press).

University of Illinois (2019). Newspapers and Magazines as Primary Sources. Retrieved from

https://guides.library.illinois.edu/c.php?g=593567&p=4105853

Urry, J. (2000). Mobile Sociology. The British journal of sociology, 51:1, pp 185-203. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2000.00185.x

Urry, J. 2000. Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-first Century. London: Routledge.

Van Reekum, R. (2012). ‘As nation, people and public collide: enacting Dutchness in public discourse’, Nations and Nationalism 18, 4: 583–602. Van Reekum, R. 2014. Out of Character: Debating Dutchness, Narrating Citizenship. University of Amsterdam: Doctoral Thesis. Van Reekum, R. (2016). Raising the question: articulating the Dutch identity crisis through public debate. DOI: 10.1057/978-1-137-53410-1_2. P. 23-47 Verkuyten, M. (2009). Support for Multiculturalism and Minority Rights: The Role of NationalIdentification and Out-group Threat. Social Justice Research, 22: 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0087-7 Verkuyten, M., Yogeeswaran, K. (2017). The Social Psychology of Intergroup Toleration: A Roadmap for Theory and Research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 21:1, pp 72 –96. DOI: 10.1177/1088868316640974 Volkan, V., D. (1997). Blood Lines: From Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism. Farrar Straus & Giroux : New York Vossen, K. (2010). Populism in the Netherlands after Fortuyn: Rita Verdonk and Geert Wilders Compared. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 11:1, 22-38, DOI: 10.1080/15705850903553521

W Ware, A. (2002) The United States. Populism as a political strategy, in: in: Y. Me´ ny & Y. Surel (Eds) Democracies and the Populist Challenge (New York: Palgrave). Wang : http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.865.4581&rep=rep1&type=pdf Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis. Sage Publications. Webster, F. (2013) “What’s the Use of the Public Sphere in the Age of the Internet?” In F.L.F. Lee, L. Leung, J. Linchuan Qiu, & D.S.C. Chu, eds., Frontiers in New Media Research. New York: Routledge. 19-38. Wekker, G. (2016) White Innocence: Paradoxes of Colonialism and Race. Duke University Press. Wessler, H., & Freudenthaler, R. (2018). Public Sphere. DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756841-0030 West, C. (1990). The New Cultural Politics of Difference. The Humanities as Social Technology, Vol. 53,

pp. 93-109. ????: The MIT Press Wiles, P. (1969) A syndrome, not a doctrine: some elementary theses on populism, in: G. Ionescu & E. Gellner (Eds) Populism. Its Meanings and National Characteristics, pp. 166–179 (London: Gellner Weidenfeld & Nicolson). Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art (n.d). About. Retrieved from https://www.wdw.nl/en/about_us/ Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art (2017). Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art Jaarverslag 2017. Retrieved from https://www.wdw.nl/en/about_us/annual_report Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art (n.d). Timeline 1: Debates about the institutions’s name. Retrieved from: https://www.wdw.nl/nl/our_program/events/timeline_1_debates_about_the_institution_s_na me White, M., D., & Marsh, E., E. (2006). Content Analysis: A flexible methodology. Johns Hopkins University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2006.0053

Appendix A: Sample

UNIT Y M D PUBLISHER Rotterdam Type article Position Author NR Published 1 2017 6 20 AD Y News publication C Nadia Berkelder 2 2017 6 24 NRC News publication C 3 2017 6 24 AD Opinion C Jan Bunnik, Spijkenisse De Groene 4 2017 8 24 Amsterdammer Feature C Koen Kleijn 5 2017 9 6 De Havenloods Y Opinion N 6 2017 9 7 De Volkskrant News publication C Anna Van Leeuwen 7 2017 9 7 NRC News publication C Sabeth Snijders Algemeen Nederlands 8 2017 9 7 PErsbureau (ANP) News publication CG Vleugel Davidson 10 2017 9 8 Het Parool Feature GC Nadia Berkelder 11 2017 9 8 NRC Feature CG Sabeth Snijders Maarten Van Gulik, 12 2017 9 8 De Volkskrant Feature N Historicus, Rotterdam 13 2017 9 8 Metro Y Feature CG 14 2017 9 8 Leidsch Dagblad News publication CG 15 2017 9 8 trouw News publication C News publication 16 2017 9 8 De Telegraaf /feature CGN News publication 17 2017 9 8 de Volkskrant /feature N Olaf Tempelman Dagblad van het 18 2017 9 8 Noorden News publication CG 19 2017 9 8 Volkskrant Opinion N Erik Ranzijn 20 2017 9 8 AD Y Opinion N Eefje Oomen 21 2017 9 8 AD Y Opinion G Hans Van Soest News 22 2017 9 9 de Volkskrant publication/opinion NG Bert Wagendorp J. De Vries & Pieter 23 2017 9 9 NRC Opinion N Stokvis 24 2017 9 9 NRC News publication G 25 2017 9 9 AD Y Opinion (column) N Özcan Akyol 26 2017 9 9 AD Y Opinion NG M. Verwaal, Dordrecht 27 2017 9 9 AD Y News publication G 29 2017 9 9 de Telegraaf Opinion N 30 2017 9 9 AD Y Opinion N Leon Van Heel 31 2017 9 9 AD Y Opinion GC Ernest Vd Kwast 32 2017 9 9 De Volkskrant Feature C De Twentsche 33 2017 9 9 Courant Tubantia Opinion G 34 2017 9 9 De Telegraaf Opinion N Margo Stols

G.C. Molewijk, 35 2017 9 11 De Volkskrant Opinion G Amsterdam 36 2017 9 11 De Telegraaf Opinion N De Twentsche 37 2017 9 12 Courant Tubantia Opinion N Rene Rorink 38 2017 9 12 NRC Opinion N Evy Van Der Sanden Tanya Hoogwerf (Raadslid Van Leefbaar 39 2017 9 12 NRC Opinion G Rotterdam.) De Volkskrant - 40 2017 9 12 Groningen Opinion (column) N Margriet Oostveen 41 2017 9 12 De Volskrant Opinion N Sander Van Walsum 42 2017 9 12 Trouw Opinion CN Henk Slechte, Historicus 43 2017 9 12 AD Y Opinion (column) N Wesselpenning Ingezonden: Rien Van 44 2017 9 13 BN de Stem Opinion (ingezonden) N Der Pluijm, 45 2017 9 14 AD Y Feature G Fotograaf Nico Brons En Verslaggever Wichard 46 2017 9 14 AD Feature N Maassen 47 2017 9 14 Leidsch Dagblad Opinion C Erna Straatsma Saskia Pieterse Is Als Neerlandica Verbonden Aan De Universiteit 48 2017 9 14 De Volkskrant Opinion C Utrecht Reformatorisch 49 2017 9 14 dagblad Opinion N Jan Van Klinken Matthijs Van Rumpt Jan 50 2017 9 15 de Volkskrant Satire CG Van Tienenamsterdam 51 2017 9 15 Trouw Opinion CGN Rob De Wijk 52 2017 9 16 AD Y Opinion (column) G Paul De Leeuw Hans Van Houwelingen, 53 2017 9 16 NRC Opinion N Beeldend Kunstenaar Gertjan Van 54 2017 9 16 Elsevier weekblad Opinion CN Schoonhoven 55 2017 9 16 NRC Opinion CN 56 2017 9 18 de Volkskrant Opinion GN 61 2017 9 20 Haarlemsdagblad Opinion C Kees Van Der Linden Frank Van Den Heuvel · Jurist Nd.Nl/Opinie 62 2017 9 20 Nederlands dagblad Opinion N Beeld Anp 65 2017 9 21 de Telegraaf News Publication N 66 2017 9 22 de volkskrant Feature N Sander Van Walsum 67 2017 9 23 NRC News Publication CG Lucette Mascini Bas Blokker Foto Roger 68 2017 9 23 NRC Opinion C Cremers 70 2017 9 28 NRC Opinion N Janneke Wesseling 71 2017 9 29 Eindhovens dagblad Opinion N Geert Van Elten 72 2017 9 30 De Telegraaf Opinion (Interview) C 67

De Gooi- en 74 2017 10 5 Eemlander Opinion CN 75 2017 10 5 Nederlands Dagblad Opinion NG Peter Giesen 76 2017 10 6 de Volkskrant Feature N Sacha Bronwasser J.P. Visser, 77 2017 10 7 Elsevier Weekblad Opinion G Beesterzwaag De Groene 79 2017 10 26 Amsterdammer Feature NC Abram De Swaan De Groene 80 2017 10 26 Amsterdammer Feature N Joost De Vries Leon Van Heel Sharon 81 2017 10 27 AD Y Feature NGC Stork 82 2017 10 27 AD Y News Publication N 83 2017 11 7 AD Feature N Jaap Bouman 84 2017 11 7 Het Parool Feature CNG Roelf Jan Duin 85 2017 11 9 NRC Feature N Sandra Smets 86 2017 11 10 AD Opinion N Kees Thies Frank Fabian Van Keeren Schrijver En 87 2017 11 11 NRC Opinion N Docent Nederlands 88 2017 11 18 Trouw Feature G Mark Hoogstad Algemeen Nederlands 89 2017 11 22 Persbureau ANP Feature N Barenda Grutterink De Groene 90 2017 11 23 Amsterdammer Feature G Guido Van Eijck 91 2017 11 25 Trouw Feature N Jolande Withuis 92 2017 12 1 de Telegraaf News Publication G Interview Wierd Duk, By 93 2017 12 2 Nederlands Dagblad Opinion (Interview) G Maurice Hoogendoorn De Groene 94 2017 12 21 Amsterdammer Feature NC Pieter Van Os 95 2017 12 30 de Volkskrant Feature N Sander Van Walsum 96 2018 1 3 Eindhovens Dagblad Feature G Vanda Van Der Kooi 97 2018 1 6 Trouw Feature N Piet Emmer Paul Scheffer Is Hoogleraar Europese Studies Aan De 98 2018 1 6 NRC Feature N Universiteit Van Tilburg Noordhollands 99 2018 1 13 Dagblad Feature CGN Frans Van Den Berg 100 2018 1 16 de Telegraaf Feature CGN Inge Lengton 101 2018 1 17 de Telegraaf Feature G Wierd Duk 102 2018 1 17 Het Parool Feature NC Lex Boon Noordhollands Mannus Van Der Laan 103 2018 1 18 Dagblad Opinion CGN 104 2018 1 19 NRC Opinion (Interview) NCG Freek Schravesande 105 2018 1 20 de Volkskrant Opinion NGC Melle Runderkamp 106 2018 1 23 Eindhovens dagblad Y Feature CG Tonny Van Der Mee 68

107 2018 1 23 de Telegraaf Opinion GN 108 2018 1 24 Metro Y News Publication CN Marcel Smit 109 2018 1 24 Brabants dagblad Feature NG John Van Zuijlen 112 2018 1 26 Trouw Opinion G Rob De Wijk 113 2018 1 30 NRC Opinion (column) NC Tom-Jan Meeus 114 2018 2 10 BN de Stem Feature C Nico Schapendonk 115 2018 2 13 Eindhovens Dagblad Feature GC Venda Van Der Kooi Reformatorisch 116 2018 2 13 dagblad Feature G Dick Den Braber Nienke Zoetbrood, Rokhaya Seck En Lauren 117 2018 2 22 Vrij Nederland Feature CN Fabels Rien Van Den Berg Redacteur Beeld Anp / 118 2018 2 22 Nederlands Dagblad Opinion CN Remko De Waal 119 2018 2 22 Vrij nederland Feature N Carel Peeters 120 2018 2 22 de Telegraaf Opinion G J. Prins, Sliedrecht 121 2018 2 22 de Stentor Feature G Yang Yang Chiu 122 2018 3 3 Elsevier Weekblad Opinion (Interview) G Carla Joosten 123 2018 3 3 de Stentor Opinion (column) N 124 2018 3 28 de Volkskrant Feature CG Japke-D. Bouma Schrijft Elke Week Over De Taal Die Ze Om Zich Heen Hoort. Deze Week: 125 2018 3 30 NRC Opinion NG Straatnamen. 126 2018 4 4 AD Y Feature GN Peter Winterman 127 2018 4 6 de Volkskrant Feature N Maartje Bakker 128 2018 5 7 de Volkskrant Opinion (Interview) CN Anna Van Leeuwen 129 2018 5 8 de Volkskrant Opinion CN Herman Fijn, Gertjan Van 130 2018 5 12 Elsevier Weekblad Opinion (Interview) CN Schoonhoven 131 2018 5 16 NRC Opinion CN Paul Scheffer 133 2018 6 16 de telegraaf Feature G 135 2018 6 28 NRC Feature GNC Michel Krielaars 136 2018 8 10 de Telegraaf Feature C 137 2018 8 25 Trouw Feature C Arriët Salm 138 2018 8 27 AD Y Feature CG Marcel Potters Tineke Speksnijder Is Eigenaar Van Café De De Havenloods Schouw Op De Witte De 139 2018 9 5 Alexander Y Opinion G Withstraat. 140 2018 9 8 NRC Opinion (column) N Mirjam De Winter 141 2018 9 8 Trouw Feature N Meindert Van Der Kaaij 142 2018 9 21 AD Y Feature C Arie Westeneng Redactie: Marno De Boer, Wilma Kieskamp 143 2018 9 26 Trouw Feature N En Bart Zuidervaart. 69

146 2018 11 10 de Telegraaf Opinion (Interview) G 147 2018 11 23 Brabants dagblad Opinion G Maarten Van Lankvelt 149 2019 2 1 de Telegraaf Opinion G Otto Vleeshouwer News publication 152 2019 4 13 NRC /feature GCN #Naam?

- Rode data zijn artiekelen in een peak - Cng zijn positions - Omdat er dubbele en onrelevante artiekelen waren, lopen de unit numers niet lineair op.

Appendix B: Codebook This codebook functioned as a guideline for the data analysis of this current research. The analysis aimed to find answers to the question: ‘In what ways is the name of Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art contested in the media?’.

Unit of analysis and data Newspapers are utilized as a proxy for the wider media. Their overall aim is to inform its readers about specific news features, by presenting the underlying story. With this newspapers have the power to shape the story by including or emphasizing specific information (Smit et al., 2002). At the same time, newspapers reflect they target group by a continuous representation of interest and approaches. Besides, they give the audience the opportunity to participate by including opinion pieces and letters of readers (Kammer 2013). Hence, the audience influences the content of the news, newspapers provide frames to its readers, and their choice on who to present, elaborates on the intentional selection of the newspaper. For these reasons, newspaper articles provide an accurate framework for this study, in order to establish by who, what and how the name of WdW is contested. Therefore, the unit of analysis for this study exists of newspaper articles. The data for this research was gathered through the database LexisNexis. Eventually, all newspaper articles about the WdW debate, published by Dutch Newspapers between February 10th 2017 and May 24th 2019 collected. The articles were cross referenced and duplicates were eliminated, resulting in a sample of 132 data units. These articles ca be specified into three sorts: news publications, opinion pieces and feature articles. The coverage time frame for the data selection started at February 10th 2017, as it was on this date that the name of WdW was first openly questioned by Cinema Olada. The final date of May 24th 2019 was selected based on the progress and deadlines of this study.

Coding method According to Gibbs (2007), coding is the process of identifying fragments of data, in order to identify concepts and search for relations between them. The data was approached through an open coding technique. Meaning that no coding scheme prior to the act of coding was developed. The eventual codes were derived from the data throughout the process of coding. led to eleven codes which will be clarified in the next section by means of a coding scheme (Bryman, 2013).

Preliminary codes

Code Description (used frames in the articles) (This code is used when…)

Economic An economic approach to (the content of) the WdW discussion is expressed. Educative (The content of) the WdW discussion is approached from an educative angle. Geographical A geographical explanation is presented in relation to (the content of) the WdW discussion.

(The content of) the WdW debate is placed in a international or global context. Ideological (The content of) the WdW discussion is approached as an ideological matter Ignorance/indifference. Ignorance/indifference is expressed towards the (the content of) the WdW debate. Linguistic (The content of) the WdW discussion is approached through linguistics. Social critique The WdW debate and/or its content is addressed as a ‘Maatschappelij critische’ matter.

E.g. ➢ race/racism ➢ equality ➢ cultural diversity Moral It is contested why a specific element of (the content of) the WdW debate is moral/immoral.

Also: who is to blame? Organizational The data is focused on (the content of) the WdW debate through and organizational approach.

E.g. - Focus on organizational change Political In the data, (the content of) the WdW debate is connected to political aspects.

E.g. - Political ideologies - Political parties Time TIME : in a historical sense (The content of) the WdW discussion is approached through a historical view.

E.g. - Historical explanation is given: why people see it as a remnant of colonial times (both positive and negative).

TIME : a change of perspective Within the data, (the content of) the WdW discussion relates to a change (in perspective) over time

E.g. - Interpretation of the name, comparing now and then

Appendix C: Distribution of arguments

Educati Ignoranc Moral Organizat Related Social TIME CULTURE CULTURE NARRAT ve e ional Critique CRITIC GUARD OR

CULTURE 10 18 31 18 29 44 31 0 12 9 CRITIC CULTURE 4 5 14 10 15 24 19 12 0 8 GUARD NARRAT-OR 24 32 27 9 32 67 47 9 8 0

300 ○ TIME Gr=81 250 ○ Social Critique 200 Gr=96 ○ Related 150 Gr=52 Astitel ○ Organizational 100 Gr=26 ○ Moral 50 Gr=52

0 ○ ignorance ○ CULTURE CRITIC ○ CULTURE GUARD ○ NARRATOR Gr=50 Gr=24 Gr=26 Gr=26 ○ Ideological Astitel Gr=37

Appendix D: Translation of quotes

Nadia Berkelder, AD Rotterdams Dagblad, code 1:2 Witte Corneliszoon de With was vlootvoogd van de VOC en daarom betrokken bij koloniale uitbuiting. Witte Corneliszoon de With was an admiral of the VOC and therefore involved in colonial exploitation.

Liesbeth Dirks, history teacher, AD, Code 1.157 De meeste hommages stammen uit de 19de eeuw toen het nationalisme hoogtij vierde. Nu kijken we kritischer naar mensen als de With en Coen. […] Als we al die namen uit de openbare ruimte halen, zijn we bezig onze geschiedenis weg te moffelen. Daar geloof ik niet in. Want die helden verwijzen naar allerlei hoofdstukken in onze historie die Nederland wel hebben gemaakt tot wat het nu is. Most homages date from the 19th century when nationalism reigned. Nowadays we look more critically at people like De With and Coen. [...] If we take all those names out of the public space, we are trying to erase our history. I don't believe in that. These heroes refer to all kinds of chapters from our history that made The Netherlands to what it is today.

Hans van Houwelingen, NRC Next & NRC Handelsblad, code 1318 We kunnen inderdaad van alles met geschiedenis uitspoken, behalve ons ervan ontdoen. Koloniale geschiedenis ís er, of je het wilt of niet. Ook het ‘westerse kunstinstituut’ heeft een koloniale geschiedenis. Jammer misschien, maar waar. We can indeed do all sorts of things with history… except getting rid of it. We have to deal with our colonial past, whether we want it or not. Also the ‘Western Art Institute’ has a colonial history. A pity perhaps, but true.

Nico Brons & Wicher Maassen, AD Amersfoortse courant, code 1:262 Want hoezeer hun daden eeuwenlang zijn geroemd, het waren wel schurken, die niet alleen de strijd aangingen met de Spanjaarden en de Engelsen, maar in naam van de natie evengoed plantages platbrandden. Their acts have been praised for centuries. However, these so called heroes were nothing but villains who not only competed with the Spaniards and the English, but also burned down plantations in the name of the nation.

Erna Straatsma, Leidsch Dagblad, code 1:272 ‘Er is niets feestelijks aan het het koloniale verleden met zijn slavernij en zijn massale roof- en moordpartijen’, aldus Westerink ‘There is nothing to be proud of when it comes to colonial past with slavery and mass robberies and murders,’ said Westerink.

Wessel Penning, AD Rotterdams Dagblad, code 1:247 In nieuwe tijden krijg je nieuwe inzichten en dan wordt er soms een oude held van zijn voetstuk geduwd. In dat opzicht kan het geen kwaad dat de reputatie wordt beschouwd van de oud-Hollandse zeekapitein Witte de With, een veel geëerd man uit de tijd dat overzeese gebieden nog met veel geweld mochten worden leeggeroofd, zonder dat je daarvoor na terugkeer bij Pauw, Zembla of Nieuwsuur op het matje moest verschijnen. In new times new insights arise and old heroes are thrown off their pedestals. In that respect it is of no harm to consider the reputation of the old Dutch sea captain Witte de With, a much honored man from a time that overseas territories could still be robbed with great force, and people were not required to justify themselves on television .

Abran Swaan, De Groene Amsterdammer, code 1:405 Een actiegroep maakte bezwaar tegen de naam van het kunstcentrum Witte de With […] die blijft vooralsnog naamloos van schaamte. 74

A group of activists objected to the name of the Witte de With art center [...], which for the time being remains nameless out of shame.

Hans van Soest, AD, code 1:189 Je moet de morele kaders van nu niet op het verleden toepassen. One cannot apply conceptions of today, to moments of the past.

Piet Emmer, Trouw, Code 1:469 Je zou hem net zo goed kunnen verwijten dat hij zijn contacten met buitenlandse regeringsleiders per brief onderhield en niet per telefoon of e-mail. Wilt u namens hem excuses aanbieden? Dan kunt u de rest van uw leven beter vrij nemen, want er is volgens onze huidige opvattingen in het verleden zoveel verkeerd gegaan, dat je dag en nacht bezig zou zijn om je daarvoor te verontschuldigen. Ik hoop dan ook dat de huidige beeldenstorm weer gaat liggen. Het verleden heeft nu eenmaal andere maatstaven en die moeten we ook gebruiken om dat verleden te beoordelen. Een Engelse auteur heeft dat heel aardig onder woorden gebracht: Het verleden is een vreemd land waar ze zaken anders doen. You could just as well blame him [Witte Corneliszoon de With] for maintaining his contacts with foreign governments by letter and not by telephone or e-mail. Do you want to apologize on his behalf? In that case you better take the rest of your life off, because according to our current conceptions so much has gone wrong in the past that you would be busy apologizing for things day and night. I therefore hope that the current iconoclasm will fade away. The past simply has different standards and we must also use these standards to assess that past. An English author has put that very nicely into words: The past is a foreign country where they do business differently.

Piet Emmer , de Telegraaf, Unit 29 Slavenhandel is vreselijk, maar de Nederlandse rol wordt erger voorgesteld dan de feiten toelaten. Op een bevolking van twee miljoen mensen, hielden misschien duizend zich actief bezig met de slavenhandel. Het leverde ons land nauwelijks iets op. Berekeningen lopen uiteen van 0,001 tot 0,1 procent van het Nederlands bruto nationaal product. De meeste rederijen die zich ermee bezighielden, gingen failliet. Bij ons hoefde de slavenhandel daarom niet te worden afgeschaft, het hield vanzelf op. Slave trade is terrible. However, the Dutch stake in this is presented worse than the actual facts. Out of a population of two million people, perhaps a thousand were actively engaged in the slave trade. It hardly yielded anything for our country. Calculations range from 0.001 to 0.1 percent of the Dutch gross national product. Most of the shipping companies involved in Slave trade went bankrupt. The slave trade even did not have to be abolished, it stopped automatically.

Unknown, de Volkskrant, code 1:334 “Alsof er ook maar enige reden is om het begrip Gouden Eeuw tussen aanhalingstekens te plaatsen als je Vermeer, Rembrandt, Hals, Leijster en de Ruijsdaels in je collectie hebt.” "Like there is any reason to put the concept of the Dutch Golden Age in between quotation marks if you have Vermeer, Rembrandt, Hals, Leijster and Ruijsdaels in your collection."

Eefje Oomen, AD, code 1:180 Die helden verwijzen naar periodes die Nederland wel hebben gemaakt tot wat het nu is. Those heroes refer to periods that have made the Netherlands what it is today.

Unknown, AD Rotterdams Dagblad, code 1:249 Jammer vind ik wel dat zo opeens juist de gelijknamige, zo gezellige straat in een omstreden daglicht is komen te staan. De 'Witte de With' was dertig jaar geleden nog een naargeestige steeg vol lokale penoze, maar is nu een stralende allee vol leuke tentjes en terrassen. De straat staat voor mij symbool voor het tegenwoordig zo bruisende Rotterdam. It is a pity that all of a sudden also the cozy street, that bares the same name [Witte de With], has been brought into discredit. Thirty years ago the 'Witte de With' [street] was still a pathetic alley full of local

75 penoze, but is now a radiant street full of nice places and terraces. For me, the street is symbolic for the contemporary and vibrant city of Rotterdam.

Unknown, de Telegraag, code 1:233 Cru gezegd, delen de nazaten van slaven nu in de welvaart van ons deel van de wereld. Bluntly put, the descendants of slaves now share in the prosperity of our part of the world.

Jan van Klinken, Reformatorisch Dagbblad, code 1:289 Vergeleken met wat de Arabieren aan slavenhandel bedreven, waren wij maar kruimeldieven. In comparison to the contribution to slave trade by the Arab people, we [the Dutch] were just crumbles.

Anna van Leeuwen, de Volkskrant, code 1:65 Onze founding fathers waren nou eenmaal roekeloze plunderaars en bandieten die we te lang 'zeehelden' hebben genoemd. Ik hoop dat er plaats komt voor nieuwe helden en nieuwe instituten. Our founding fathers were simply reckless looters and bandits whom we have been called 'heroes' for too long. I hope there will be room for new heroes and new institutions.

Unknown, de Telegraaf, code 1:230 Moeten mannen als Jan Pieterszoon Coen en Witte de With wel geëerd worden met standbeelden? „Mijn idee zou zijn: uitleggen wat de standbeelden betekenen. Ik denk dat je het verleden niet kan zuiveren door standbeelden weg te halen. Het verleden blijft zoals het is. Het was toen volstrekt normaal om racistisch of antisemitisch te zijn. Do men like Jan Pieterszoon Coen and Witte de With have to be honored with statues? "My idea would be: explain what the statues mean. I think you cannot clear the past by removing statues. The past remains as it is. It was then perfectly normal to be racist or anti-Semitic.

Sandra Smets, NRC code 1:431 Het verleden oproepen is nodig omdat het doorwerkt […] kunst draagt dus (onbewust) de ideologie achter het kolonialisme uit. Recalling the past is necessary because it effects the now [...] art thus (unconsciously) propagates the ideology behind colonialism.

Koen Kelijn, de Groene Amsterdammer, code 1:23 Waarom heeft de instelling, die zich zo laat voorstaan op haar kritische houding, in de 26 jaar van haar bestaan nooit nagedacht over die naam, noch over de associatie met koloniaal geweld, onderdrukking, enzovoort? In the 26 years of its existence, why did the institution with its so called critical attitude, never think about that name, nor about its association with colonial violence, oppression, etc.

Koen Kelijn, de Groene Amsterdammer, code 1:29 Het feit dat Witte de With heeft gezwegen over de historische activiteiten van haar naamgever is een doelbewuste keuze. Sterker nog: Door de naam "Witte de With" uit te dragen heeft het Centrum de gewelddadige veroveringen die het Nederlandse kolonialisme kenmerken schoongewassen en stilletjes gepromoot. The fact that Witte de With has kept silent about the historical activities of her name giver is a deliberate choice. In fact: By propagating the name" Witte de With ", the center has quietly cleaned and promoted the violent conquests that characterize Dutch colonialism.

Unknown, De Havenloods, code 1:46 Nou zit ik al heel lang in die straat, maar ik moest toch eens even nakijken wat die man precies gedaan had, ik had me er nooit echt in verdiept. Net zoals iedereen die geen geschiedenis heeft gestudeerd denk ik.

Well, I have been in that street for a long time, but I had to check what the man had done, I had never really immersed myself in it. Just like everyone who has not studied history, I think.

Frank van den Heuvel, Nederlands Dagblad, code 1:348 Steeds vaker zien we mensen die bepleiten dat we op een bepaalde manier ons verleden moeten uitwissen. Dat vind ik een punt van zorg. Het zijn vaak de verkeerde regimes die de geschiedenis en de uitingen hiervan willen veranderen. Ze modelleren die naar eigen inzicht en dat is afhankelijk van de wind die er waait. Dat is ook mijn bezwaar tegen de naamswijziging die de directie van de Rotterdamse kunstinstelling Witte de With nu wil doorvoeren. […] Gaan we onze geschiedenis herschrijven? Moet deze postuum heel zuiver en clean zijn? Opdat de generaties na ons denken dat we al die duizenden jaren heel braaf waren. Dan geven we juist mensen die angstig zijn voor andere culturen ruimte om hun kritiek te spuien op wat niet past; in hun ogen. En als de overheid blijft doen wat ze nu via het Rijksmuseum doet, dan geven we toekomstige bestuurders en politici in Nederland de ruimte om, wanneer zij aan de macht zijn, met kunst, cultuur, geschiedenis en traditie te doen wat hun goeddunkt. Juist dat kan een gevaarlijke ontwikkeling zijn. We increasingly see people who argue that we must erase our past in a certain way. I find that a concern. It is often the wrong regimes that want to change the history and its manifestations. They model it according to their own insight and that depends on the wind that blows. That is also my objection to the name change that the management of the art institution Witte de With in Rotterdam now wants to implement. [...] Are we going to rewrite our history? Does this has to be very pure and clean? So that the generations after us think that we have been very good throughout those thousands of years. Then we give people who are afraid of other cultures room to criticize what does not fit; in their eyes. And if the government continues to do what it does now through the Rijksmuseum, then we give future administrators and politicians in The Netherlands the space, when they are in power, to do what they see fit with art, culture, history and tradition. That can be a dangerous development.

Hans van Houwelingen, NRC, code 1:325 “Een nieuwe naam zou een link naar het verleden uitwissen die juist zichtbaarheid nodig heeft. […] Als straatnamen en standbeelden verwijderd zijn, herinnert in de publieke ruimte weinig meer aan het koloniale verleden dat we juist niet willen vergeten. A new name would erase a link to the past, which actually needs visibility. [...] When street names and statues have been removed, there is little left in the public space to reminder the colonial past that we do not want to forget.

Sander van Walsum, de Volkskrant, 1:461 Met de verwijdering van standbeelden of de wijziging van straatnamen zou dat organisch proces worden miskend. Het zijn pogingen om het verleden naar de normen van onze tijd te modelleren. De veronderstelde eenzijdigheid van de bestaande historiografie zou worden verruild voor een nieuwe eenzijdigheid waarbij de zeeheld van weleer wordt gereduceerd tot slavenhandelaar en de Gouden Eeuw muteert in Eeuw der Schande. Dan heb je het niet meer over geschiedschrijving maar over activisme. With the removal of statues or the modification of street names, that organic process [of contemplation on history] would be ignored. They are attempts to model the past according to the standards of our time. The supposed one-sidedness of the existing historiography would be exchanged for a new one-sidedness in which the naval hero of the past is reduced to a slave trader, and the Golden Age mutates into an age of shame. Then you are no longer talking about historiography but about activism.

Anna van Leeuwen, de Volkskrant, code 1:56 In de 27 jaar dat de instelling in de voorhoede van de beeldende kunst opereert, had niemand zich aan de naam gestoord. Nu verscheen een brief die het instituut 'anti-zwartheid' verweet: 'Het resoluut verwerpen van de naam zou de eerste stap moeten zijn.'

In the 27 years that the visual arts institution has been operating, nobody was disturbed by the name. Now a letter appeared that accused the "anti-blackness" institute: ‘Resolutely rejecting the name should be the first step.’

Koen Kleijn, de Groene Amsterdammer, code 1:29 De activisten zien de reactie van Witte de With als bewijs dat het instituut faalt in 'het kritisch begrijpen van haar eigen gehistoriseerde witheid. The activists see Witte de With's reaction as proof that the institute fails to critically understand its own historicized whiteness.

Koen Kleijn, de Groene Amsterdammer , code 1:34 Dat lijkt ook de kern van de kritiek op Witte de With: een witte kunstinstelling kán niet relevant zijn voor zwarte mensen en zwarte kunstenaars; ook de meest vooruitstrevende Nederlandse instellingen voor hedendaagse kunst zijn immers verstrengeld met de koloniale geschiedenis. Het zwarte discours wordt in zo'n instelling door witte mensen ingekapseld en onschadelijk gemaakt. That also seems to be the essence of the criticism of Witte de With: a white art institution may not be relevant to black people and black artists; even the most progressive Dutch institutions for contemporary art are intertwined with colonial history. The black discourse in such an institution is encapsulated by white people and rendered harmless.

Koen Kleijn, de Groene Amsterdammer, code 1:36 Het is niet de eerste keer dat een in hoofdzaak witte culturele instelling de kritiek van Zwarte en niet- Zwarte Mensen van Kleur afzwakt door zich die kritiek op hetzelfde moment eigen te maken, te co- opteren, in een poging zich zo immuun daarvoor te maken. It is not the first time that a predominantly white cultural institution is eliminating the criticism of black and non-black people of color by adopting it, co-opting it at the same time, trying to make themselves immune.

Bert Wagendorp, de Volkskrant, code 1:197 De 'cultuurcriticus' Egbert Alejandro Martina legde de vraag op tafel: hoe kon een wit instituut een kritisch programma maken onder de naam van een kolonisator? Daar hadden ze bij het Witte de With niet zo gauw een antwoord op. 'De naam van een straat', hadden ze kunnen zeggen, maar daarmee had Martina geen genoegen genomen. De beer was los. Dat de buitenmuur van het centrum wit is en dat Witte de With nou uitgerekend Witte de With moest heten (zijn bijnaam luidde ook nog eens 'dubbelwit') hielp vermoedelijk ook niet. The culture critic Egbert Alejandro Martina publicly asks the question: how could a white institution make a critical program under the name of a colonizer? At the Witte de With, they didn't have an answer to that easily. "The name of a street", they could have said, but Martina would not have settled for that. The fact that the outer wall of the center is white and that Witte de With should be called Witte de With (his nickname was also 'double white') probably didn't help either.

Pieter van Os, de Groene Amsterdammer, code 1:459 Blacks probleem met het werk? Schutz is wit. Ze is dus niet gerechtigd zich historisch zwart leed 'toe te eigenen'. Het schilderij moet kapot, want de kunstenaar is van het verkeerde ras. Amerikaanse toestanden? Zou je denken. Maar dan Witte de With, de kunstinstelling in Rotterdam: een groep activisten van 'Zwarte en niet-Zwarte mensen van Kleur' eist niet alleen een naamsverandering, maar ook het aftreden van de staf, want die zijn niet in staat 'zich actief te onderwerpen aan een Zwarte revolutionaire agenda', iets wat Witte de With hoognodig heeft. Subtekst: ze hebben de verkeerde huidskleur. Black's problem with the work? Schutz [the creator] is white. He therefore is not entitled to 'appropriate' historical black suffering. The painting must be broken, because the artist is of the wrong race. American conditions? You would think so… But then Witte de With, the art institution in Rotterdam: a group of

78 activists from 'black and non-black people of color' not only demands a name change, but also the resignation of the staff, because they are unable to actively submit on a black revolutionary agenda', something that Witte de With desperately needs. Subtext: they have the wrong skin color.

Frans van den Berg, Noordhollands Dagblad, code 1:488 Barryl Biekman van het Landelijk Platform Slavernijverleden zei eerder dat u een wetenschapper bent en geen nazaat van een slaaf. Dat u uw mond moet houden over deze claims. ‘Zo werkt het niet. Mag alleen iemand uit de Middeleeuwen die periode onderzoeken of alleen een Chinees over de Chinese geschiedenis schrijven? Barryl Biekman, the chairwoman of the National Platform for Dutch Slavery Past, told you that you are a scientist and not a descendant of a slave, and therefore you have no right to make claims on racism. ‘That is not how it works. Can only someone from the Middle Ages investigate that period or only write a Chinese about Chinese history?’

Piet Emmer , Trouw, code 1:468 Dus de koffie met suiker, die in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw in gegoede families in mooi Chinees porselein werd geschonken, werd zowel met zwarte als met witte mensenlevens betaald, en laat zien dat de waarde van alle mensenlevens in vroeger tijd veel lager was dan tegenwoordig, ongeacht de huidskleur. So the coffee with sugar, which was served in fine Chinese porcelain in well-to-do families in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was paid for with both black and white human lives, and shows that the value of all human lives in the old days was much lower than today , regardless of skin color.

J.P. Visser, Elsevier Weekblad, code 1:399 Deze publieke kunstinstelling in Rotterdam buigt op voorhand voor een paar zwarte activisten. Natuurlijk is het gebrek aan ruggegraat van de bestuurders diep triest. De door Van Schoonhoven gehanteerde uitdrukking ‘beroepsbozen’ kende ik nog niet en wil ik graag nomineren als Woord van het jaar. This public art institution in Rotterdam bows in advance to a few black activists. Of course, the lack of backbone of the board is deeply sad. I did not yet knew the term "professional angily" [beroepsbozen] used by Van Schoonhoven and would like to nominate it as word of the year.

Unknown, Noordhollands Dagblad, code 1:485 Het debat is inderdaad feller geworden. Ik dacht dat we nuchterder zouden zijn. Maar hoewel we een zeer gelukkige bevolking zijn, is er een geweldige behoefte om slachtoffer te zijn. Het is raadselachtig. Overal wordt over geklaagd. Kijk, Zwarte Piet zouden we nu niet meer uitvinden en die zal wel een keer verdwijnen. Met racisme heeft het weinig te maken. Als je in Europa naar gevaarlijk racisme kijkt, dan kom je in nazi-Duitsland uit. The debate has indeed become more fierce. I thought we would be more down to earth than this. But even though we are a very happy population, there is a great need to be a victim. It is enigmatic. People complain about everything. Look, we would not invent Black Pete nowadays and it will disappear. It has little to do with racism. If you look at dangerous racism in Europe, you will end up in Nazi Germany.

Roelf Jan Duin , Het Parool, code 1:425 Gespreksleider Bahram Sadeghi antwoordde dat de naam van die tunnel of een straat wat hem betreft een stuk minder belangrijk is dan de agent die hem aan de kant zet als hij de tunnel uit rijdt. Waarmee hij wilde aangeven: etnisch profileren en discriminatie op de arbeidsmarkt zijn veel belangrijker dan de symbolische betekenis van een naam of beeld. Bahram Sadeghi, who had the moderating role in the debate, replied that the name of that tunnel or a street is far less important to him than the agent who puts him aside when he drives out of the tunnel, on the street. With which he wanted to indicate: ethnic profiling and discrimination on the labor market are much more important than the symbolic meaning of a name or image.

Koen Kleijn, de Groene Amsterdammer, code 1:18 De vinnige campagnes tegen racisme raken ook de cultuurinstellingen. Diversiteit is niet genoeg: revolutionaire actie wordt gevraagd. The sharp campaigns against racism also affect the cultural institutions. Diversity is not enough: revolutionary action is required.

Olaf Tempelman, de Volkskrant, code: 1:159 Rotterdamse kunstenaars willen af van de 'anti-zwarte' 17de-eeuwse zeevaarder Witte de With als naamgever van hun instelling. Als dat het begin is van een dewittedewithisering van Nederland, staat ons nog wat te wachten. Artists from Rotterdam want to get rid of the 'anti-black' 17th-century navel officer Witte de With as the name giver of their institution. If that is the start of a wittedewithisation of the Netherlands, there is still something waiting for us.

Unknown, de Volkskrant, code 1:199 Witte de With is niet alleen verdacht vanwege de naam, maar ook omdat het een wit instituut is dat volgens de verzamelde verontwaardigden alleen al door de naamkeuze heeft laten zien het wrede verleden te willen wegpoetsen. Als mensen eenmaal spoken zien, worden die doorgaans alsmaar groter. Witte de With is not only suspected because of the name, but also because it is a white institution that, according to the collected indigenes, has shown by the choice of name alone that it wants to brush away the cruel past. Once people see ghosts, they usually get bigger and bigger.

Özcan Akyol, AD, code 1:221 In deze turbulente tijden, waarin we het vaak hebben over acceptatie van anderen, met al hun eigenaardigheden en tekortkomingen, is goed om op de eerste plaats te berusten in wat we zelf allemaal vroeger niet goed deden. Alleen is het nogal rigoureus en contraproductief om dit sentiment te vertalen in een nieuwe beeldenstorm. In these turbulent times, where we often talk about acceptance of others, with all their peculiarities and shortcomings, it is good to be first and foremost based on what we all did not do well before. Only it is rather rigorous and counterproductive to translate this sentiment into a new iconoclasm.

Joost de Vries, gr amst, code 1:414 Geschiedenis, als iets waar je trots of beschaamd over moet zijn, geschiedenis als moreel ijkpunt. History as a moral checkpoint, as something you should be either proud or ashamed of.

Koen Kleijn, de Groene Amsterdammer, code 1:32 Witte Corneliszoon De With was een fenomenale gewetenloze opportunist, die niet handelde uit nationalistische of religieuze motieven, maar puur om de eer en het gewin. Punt. Wil je daar echt ‘een zichtbare link’ mee onderhouden? Witte Corneliszoon De With was a phenomenal unscrupulous opportunist, who did not act for nationalistic or religious reasons, but purely for honor and gain. End of discussion. Do you really want to maintain a visible link with that?

Olaf Tempelman, de Volkskrant, code 1:162 In een nieuwe tijd gaat niemand uit een oude tijd vrijuit. De opvolgers van Witte de With zullen het nog merken. In a new age, no one from an old time gets carte blanche. The successors of Witte de With will experience it themselves.

Nadia Berkelder , Het Parool, 1:104 Wij hebben ons vervolgens afgevraagd of ons instituut een naam moet dragen waar een grote groep mensen aanstoot aan neemt," zegt Weeda. "Zij voelen zich geschoffeerd. We willen een instituut zijn dat open is voor iedereen. We then wondered whether our institution should bear a name that a large group of people feels insulted by,’ says Weeda. ‘They feel offended. We want to be an institution that is open to everyone.

Hans van Soest, AD, code 1:186 Een gezamenlijke geschiedenis is het cement van een samenleving. Daarbij hoort een canon. Die kun je niet telkens herschrijven door de morele kaders van nu toe te passen op het verleden. Wat we nu een deugd vinden, is over een eeuw misschien verwerpelijk. A shares history is the cement of a society. This includes a canon. You cannot rewrite this every time by applying the moral frameworks of today to moments of the past. What we find a virtue today, may be reprehensible in a century.

Unknown, AD, code 1:189 De wereld is niet zwart-wit, goed-slecht. En dat was het verleden ook niet. Het is intellectueel lui om dat wel te suggereren. En het is intolerant om alles wat je onwelgevallig is uit het straatbeeld te verwijderen. The world is not black and white, good-bad. And that wasn't the past either. It is intellectually lazy to suggest that. And it is intolerant to remove everything that is unpleasant to you from the streets.

Abram Swaan, De Groene Amsterdammer, code 1:404 Veel Nederlanders hebben het gevoel dat ze op hun tellen en hun woorden moeten passen: je kunt in dit land niet eens meer zeggen wat je denkt. Erger nog, je kunt niet eens meer denken wat je denkt. Het is vreemd dat een minuscule minderheid van gekleurde opposanten blijkbaar zoveel mensen het gevoel geeft dat ze niet meer vrijuit kunnen spreken. Many Dutch people have the feeling that they have to be carefull what they say: you can't even say what you think in this country. Even worse, you can no longer even think what you think. It is strange that a miniscule minority group of colored opponents apparently gives so many people the feeling that they can no longer speak freely.

Unknown, Metro, unit 13 Hoogwerf wil dat subsidie per direct wordt stopgezet als de naam toch wordt gewijzigd onder druk van dit soort ‘politiek correcte’ groepjes. Hoogwerf wants subsidies to be stopped immediately if the name is changes under pressure from such politically correct groups.

Martine Gosselink quoted by Bas Blokker, NRC, Unit 68 De kritiek van buiten is rauwer. Toen het museum de aanpassing van de tekstbordjes aankondigde, hoonden sommigen meteen: hè, wat politiek correct. „Dan denk ik: het Rijksmuseum is bij uitstek de plek waar je politiek correct moet zijn. Niet dat je zaken verfraait of verdoezelt, maar dat je je bij de feiten houdt." Over twintig jaar, denkt ze, vinden we het heel normaal dat niemand nog het woord ‘neger’ gebruikt, zoals nu niemand meer verwacht dat je rookt in een vliegtuig. The criticism from outside is more raw. When the museum announced the adaptation of the text plates, some immediately frowned how politically correct it was. Then I think: the Rijksmuseum is pre-eminently the place where you have to be politically correct. Not that you embellish or obscure things, but that you stick to the facts. In twenty years, we think it is quite normal that nobody uses the word 'nigger' anymore, just as nobody expects you to smoke in a plane.

Unknown, Telegraaf, Unit 16 Now that in Rotterdam the attack on the past has started again, emeritus professor Piet Emmer speaks of "an iconoclasm". According to him, "the end is lost, we are lost" with the new politically correct movement. "call streets after flowers and plants, you can't fall for that.” Nu in Rotterdam opnieuw de aanval op het verleden wordt ingezet, spreekt emeritus hoogleraar Piet Emmer ronduit van ’een beeldenstorm’. Volgens hem is ’het einde zoek’ met de nieuwe politiek-correcte beweging. „Noem straten uiteindelijk naar bloemen en planten, daar kun je je geen buil aan vallen.”

Paul de Leeuw, AD, code 1:301 By the way, I still have my reservations about Pippi’s father, who was a pirate and incited his daughter into reckless acts. Perhaps more about that if Sweden wants to turn all Pippi schools into ABBA-skeule- institøts. Ik heb trouwens ook nog steeds mijn bedenkingen bij de vader van Pippi Langkous, die piraat was en zijn dochter tot roekeloze daden aanzette. Daarover wellicht meer als Zweden alle Pippi Langkous-scholen wil veranderen in ABBA-skeule-institøt.

Jan van Klinken, Reformatirisch Dagblad, code 1:287 I am surprised that the great scholar Desiderius Erasmus has not yet been removed from his pedestal. Rotterdam is still the proud owner of his statue, situated on the Grotekerkplein in the city of the Maas. It has been in that city since 1622, but you can wonder if the monument has not had its best days. Het verbaast me dat de grote geleerde Desiderius Erasmus nog niet van zijn sokkel is gehaald. Rotterdam is nog altijd de trotse bezitter van zijn standbeeld, gesitueerd op het Grotekerkplein in de Maasstad. Het staat al in die stad sinds 1622, maar je kunt je afvragen of het monument zijn langste tijd niet heeft gehad.

Jaap Bouman, AD, Code 1:421 Dordrecht also has a Witte de Withstraat and even a entire neighborhood is named after historical heroes. These names have incorporated quite some historical ‘mistakes’. Dordrecht also has two neighborhoods with street names that could be directly related to the colonial past. Ook Dordrecht heeft een Witte de Withstraat en Wielwijk is zelfs een wijk waar straat na straat genoemd is naar een of andere zeeheld. En daar zitten aardig wat 'fouten' tussen. Dordrecht heeft ook twee buurten met straatnamen die direct verband zouden kunnen houden met het koloniale verleden.

Roelf Jan Duin, het Parool, code 1:423 It does not require a trained eye to spot the references to the colonial past in the center of Amsterdam. When you pay attention to it, there are more references than you initially would think. The Bantammer Bridge over the Geldersekade, named after an Indonesian province. The plaque of VOC sailor Henry Hudson on the Schreierstoren. Or the opposite Scheepvaarthuis, which houses a statue of Jan Pieterszoon Coen, along with dozens of other sea heroes. But how heroic were these historical figures when you put them along the moral scale of today? Het vereist geen geoefend oog om in de Amsterdamse binnenstad de verwijzingen naar het koloniale verleden te spotten. Maar als je erop gaat letten, zijn het er toch meer dan je dacht. De Bantammerbrug over de Geldersekade, vernoemd naar een Indonesische provincie. De plaquette van VOC-zeevaarder Henry Hudson op de Schreierstoren. Of het ertegenover gelegen Scheepvaarthuis, waarop een beeld van Jan Pieterszoon Coen prijkt, samen met tientallen andere zeehelden. Maar hoe heroïsch waren deze historische figuren eigenlijk als je ze langs de morele meetlat van vandaag legt?

Appendix E, Open letter to Witte de With

What does it mean for a white institution to do “critical work” under the moniker Witte de With, the name of a high-ranking colonial naval officer who worked for both the Dutch West India Company and the Dutch East India Company (VOC and WIC)? What does it mean to engage in “critical reflection on timely issues” (from Witte de With website) under that name—a name that conjures up a history of terror? What does it mean to validate, market, and circulate such a name?

We, a group of cultural professionals, artists and activists, draw attention to the disjunction between the stated criticality of Witte de With, a Center for Contemporary Art in Rotterdam, and its failure to acknowledge its entanglement with colonial violence. Witte de With has “failed” to come to terms with its own internal contradictions, and has yet to reckon with the historical figure it symbolically embodies. Even though our critique is directed at Witte de With, it extends well beyond this institution’s white walls. The issues we address are endemic within major “critical” cultural institutions in the Netherlands.

From 17 June till 20 August 2017, Witte de With will host Cinema Olanda: Platform, a project conceived by Dutch artist Wendelien van Oldenborgh with assistance of curator Lucy Cotter, director of Witte de With Defne Ayas, curator Natasha Hoare, and the Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis (ASCA). The platform is an extension of the exhibition in the Dutch pavilion at the 57th Venice Biennale. Cinema Olanda: Platform promises to engage “questions surrounding the Netherlands’ (inter)national image vis- à-vis current transformations in the Dutch cultural and political landscape.”

Although the project is avowedly committed to “shed light on underexposed aspects of the Netherlands’ recent post-colonial history,” it is striking that no one involved in its conception had considered the legacy that the name “Witte de With” bears. When questioned about its naming during a meeting convened to discuss Cinema Olanda: Platform, director of Witte de With Defne Ayas disclosed that the issue of the Centre’s name had not previously come up in its 25-plus-year existence.

The senior staff as a matter of course readily admitted that the institution’s naming is “unfortunate,” expressed their dismay, and a “willingness” to change the name. Yet, what should we make of this admission, “willingness” and outward display of dismay in the context of 25-plus-years of non-action and recent re-action? Why has not the Centre troubled its name? Let’s not be unclear about it: the fact that Witte de With has remained silent on the historical actions of its namesake has been a purposeful choice. What’s more, by brandishing the name “Witte de With” the Centre has been sanitising and tacitly promoting the violent dispossessions that marked Dutch colonialism.

When pushed to clarify why there hadn’t been a follow-up to the concerns raised in the meeting, Witte de With responded defensively and hammered on “mutual respect” and whether it was “performative” to ask these kind of questions. Rather than doing the work, Witte de With put the load on the invited Black and non-Black people of colour. It posed the question: “what would be some of your findings around this character that makes him more controversial than many of the WIC / VOC?” This question is not only irrelevant, it is deeply unethical. Whether Witte de With is a “minor character” in Dutch colonial history, or not, should not matter—and what does “more controversial” even mean in a context of enslavement, genocide, and dispossession? It is this line of questioning and the various consecutive responses of Witte de With that expose its failure to critically understand its own historicized whiteness.

We want to make clear that this is not, and should not be, only or simply about Witte de With adopting a new name. This contemporary art centre is located on Witte de With street in the Witte de With Quarter. The city of Rotterdam proudly describes the Witte de With Quarter on its website as , a “leisure cluster,” “the vibrant heart of the Rotterdam art scene” that is “known for its dynamic nightlife.” Witte de With street has been dubbed “Rotterdam’s ‘Axis of Art’.” The street houses several other esteemed art / cultural institutes such as TENT and Showroom Mama. Art, leisure, consumption, colonisation are right 83 at the heart of the Rotterdam art scene. To trouble the name Witte de With is to trouble not only the white subject position, but the entire cultural and economic structure that supports and enables the white subject. The resolute rejection of the name should be the first of many steps toward abolishing the political and economic system that assigns value to “Witte de With.” Contemporary art institutions are no less entangled with the extractive colonial economy than any other institution built on the foundations of white supremacy.

The bodies and artistic productions of Black and non-Black people of colour are de rigueur on institutional menus, the sought after flavour in these times of lip-service “intersectionality.” White art institutions, whether they carry the name of a colonizer or not, are “excited” to engage with feminist, queer, Black, intersectional and decolonial perspectives as long as these critical interventions are framed as discourses and stripped of their radical potential and praxes. What does it, then, mean when a White institution “welcomes” and assimilates people of colour into its structures?

Kyla Wazana Tompkins tells us that “in ‘eating the other,’ the white self affirms liberal interiority through the metaphor of assimilation and digestion; blackness is the precondition . . . on which whiteness is made material, both as body and as political actor.” The consumption and incorporation of Blackness, then, only serves to satiate the belly of “critical” white liberals. White institutions fortify themselves through the consumption of Blackness. Black people pass through them, seemingly without transforming them—they extract what they need from us to sustain their “criticality.” Appropriation without credit. Tokenism and visibility without agency. Instrumentalization. Critique, pedagogy, advice, and emotional labour, as a rule, without pay. We enter and end up in their databases.

White institutions simply rehearse the all too familiar consumption of the emotional or intellectual labour or presence of Black and non-Black people of colour, now in the name of “diversity.” Therefore, we will not repeat the by-now-rote exhortations to implement diversity in recruitment and hiring practices. Along the way we have been reminded and assured time and again that Witte de With is dedicated to its equal opportunities policy with regards to employment. However, do we want to be part of a supposed critical institutional framework that is from its beginning founded on the accumulation and violation of Blackness? White institutions that seek to offer an “intellectually rigorous platform for bold experimentation” (from Witte de With’s website) to Black people—without working towards dismantling the foundations of antiblackness—can only “incorporate” Black people as accumulated and fungible objects. This very inclusion through accumulation and fungibility is at the core of antiblackness.

We sincerely doubt whether White institutions in their current organizational configurations are even appropriately equipped (if not capable) to unfold the structural and systemic changes we deem fundamental. Whether they actively seek to be authorized by a Black revolutionary agenda will be the proof of their meaningfulness and relevancy to the liberation of Black and other oppressed people. It is far from enough to “welcome” institutional critique. Apologies and perfunctory commitments to “diversity” can only go so far. Both are meaningless when not backed up with decisive radical action. So, what will Witte de With do to institutionalise the process of decolonization after Cinema Olanda: Platform is over, and the bodies of colour have left the building through the proverbial revolving door? How will it take responsibility for its (non-)actions?

Witte de With should not wrestle with these questions behind closed doors. It should be transparent and accountable towards audiences and participants for how it will be working toward undoing its institutional structures. It should go without saying that this project of undoing should not be spearheaded by the same people responsible for the sanitization of colonial violence. It is not for Witte de With to establish when nor under which terms its praxis and existence are questioned.

This is not the first time an overwhelmingly White cultural institution mitigates critique by Black and non- Black people of colour while simultaneously co-opting said critique in an effort to immunize itself against

84 it. Nor will it be the last. We therefore take this statement as the beginning of a conversation among other Black and non-Black people of colour about how to navigate the (neo)colonial cultural landscape in a moment when cultural institutions are becoming increasingly adept at using the critical language and concepts developed by Black and non-Black people of colour to fortify and maintain their own position of power.

To Witte de With we ask: How will this institution start to undo itself?

Egbert Alejandro Martina, Ramona Sno, Hodan Warsame, Patricia Schor, Amal Alhaag, Maria Guggenbichler

Co-signing in solidarity: Gloria Wekker, Alok Vaid-Menon, Flavia Dzodan, Barby Asante, Pascale Obolo, Bibi Fadlalla, Fannie Sosa, Raju Rage, SORRYYOUFEELUNCOMFORTABLE collective (Imani Robinson, Jacob Vincent Joyce, Ewuraba Hama-Lansquiot, Ciaran Finlayson), Gia Abrassart, Jermain Ostiana, Pêdra Costa, Dr Ayesha Ghanchi- Goemans, Simone Zeefuik, Mezhgan Saleh, Jovita Dos Santos Pinto, Nadia Bekkers, Joy Mariama Smith, Rudy Loewe, Tracian Meikle, Sands Murray-Wassink, Ingrid Lee, Onyeka Igwe, Teresa Cisneros, Cecilia Lisa Eliceche, Mikki Stelder, Rae Parnell, Teresa Maria Díaz Nerio, Margaret Tali, Suza Husse, Wilfred Vlad Tomescu, Céline Barry, Imara Limon, Romy Rüegger, Marina Vishmidt, Anna Frei, Emma van Meyeren, Franziska Koch, Mirjam Linschooten, Emma Haugh, Karisa Senavitis, Kevin O'Neill, Tirsa With, Savannah Theis, Dr. Noa Ha, Sinthujan Varatharajah, Guinevere Ras, Sara Mattens, Toon Fibbe, Sander Philipse, Katherine McBride, Naomi Pieter, Alaa Abu Asad, Setareh Fatehi, Zineb Seghrouchni, René Boer, Alfie Martis, Nina Bower Crooke, Délice Mugabo, Jenny Wills, Robin McGinty, Zaira Simone, Jennifer Tosch, Miguel Peres dos Santos, Sara Pape, Patricia Kaersenhout, Sruti Bala, Tirza Balk, Noémi Vanessa Michel, Negarra A. Kudumu, Phil Tortoli, kym ward, Bruno Cornellier, Wigbertson Julian Isenia, Malique Mohamud, Isabelle Sully, Inge Visscher, Inez van der Scheer, Jens Appelo, Marjan Boelsma, Hans Schraven, Joni Fieggen, Marie-Anne van Reijen, Corna Dirks, Irene de Gelded, E. C. Feiss, André Kaïjim, Jaki Seroke, Brittanie Shey, Jo-Ann With, Tessa Kersten, Evelina Rajca, Manu Rijmer, Fallon Does, Anne de Hooge, David Bennewith, Folco de Jong, Bauk Arisse, Brendan Thesign, Rebecca Carlisle-Haely, Olave Basabose, Jaap Stronks, Gustav Heinsen, Thijs Witty, Pietre van Diepen, Fazle Shairamahomed, Arnold Lubbers, Falke Pisano, Leandro Nerefuh, Libidiunga Cardoso, Ribidjunga, Dina Winkel, Christian Schmith, Jaye Brunsveld, Xandra Nibbeling, Mike van Niehoff, Lizette Krist, Caetano Carvalho, Rishi Badal, Joey van der Put, Sarah Züst, Prof. Dr. Sabine Broeck, Leana Boven, Ylva Habel, Staffan Carlsson, Piet Molendijk, Becket Mingwen, Navin 'NaferLovesYou' Thakoer, Roland Snoeren, Lucia Raymond, Albert Arendsen, Anna Okello, Michael Blok, Josefine Adolfsson, Anna Laine, Nina Vigon Manso, Nathan Van der Auwera, Jan Teurlings, Jimini Hignett, j vrer verkerde, Tina Bastajian, Jennifer van Leijen, Katayoun Arian, Jo Kali, Annet Dekker, Judith de Haas, Sandra Salome, Bart Mijland, Marie Civikov, Eva Sancho Rodriguez, Radna Rumping, Carolina Frossard, Yoeri Guépin, Dean Bowen, Sylvana Simons, Ibrahim Alaoui, Sander de Vries, Susanne Eskens, Gabriel A. Maher, Johanna Couvée, Gyonne Goedhoop, Carlota Jerez, Samuel Girma, Olle Lundin, Eric Krebbers, Isabel Mager, Mikko Lipiäinen, Mare Groen, Eduard Mangal, Ben van der Ploeg, Luc Opdebeeck, Roshini Kempadoo, Emma Ng, Bojana Mladenovic, Sayonara Stutgard, Ying Que, Nicole San, Lucie Draai, Maureen Schipper, Shamira Raphaëla, Milo van der Maaden, Cheryce Clayton, Brigitte O'Regan, max de ploeg, Marina Otero, Diego Diez, Dr Eliza Steinbock, Risk Hazekamp, Monika Dahlberg, Robin van der Haak, Angelica Falkeling, David Borgonjo, Hana Miletić, Staci Bu Shea, Ebissé Wakjira, Inneke Van Waeyenberghe, Khairani Barokka, sophie bates, Rosa Doornenbal, Tommy Naby, Sem Moema, Amandla Awethu!, Dries Douibi, D. S. Red Haircrow, Ibrahim Khayar, Michiel Vandevelde, Mia Melvær, Just for the Record Collective, Alma Söderberg, Ricardo De Lima, Paul Kempe, Gabriele Netzer, Florian Cramer, Susanne Ferwerda, Sophie Berrebi, Ieke Trinks, Alex can Stipriaan, Mat Do, Anni Puolakka, Nick Thomas, Timothy Yaczo, Praveen Sewgobind, Elif Özbay, Pieter Paul Pothoven, Jaki Seroke, Arzu Aslan, Kar Man Pang, Olga Panteleeva, Kirli Beyaz Aslan, Alexandre May, Eimear Walshe, Carla Tjon, Evan Ifekoya, belit sağ, Rana Hamadeh, Erik Stronks, Natalia Sorzano, angela jerardi, Rosie Eveleigh, Jasper Sparnaay,

Nina Köll, Lisette Smits, Nikhil Vettukattil, Lianne Leonora-Curaçao, Rachida Aziz, Madison Bycroft, Eothen Stearn, Juliacks, Louise Coysh, Elaine Reynolds, Mijke van der Drift, Kate Farquhar, Sylbee Kim, Helena Sanders, Josephine Baan, Suzanne Alleyne, Renée Mboya, Frances Ellen, Milone Reigman, Lynnee Denise, Justine Waerts, Juhee Hahm, Janine Francois, Mitchell Esajas, Anni Movsisyan, Lauren Brand, Rehana Zaman, Alberta Whittle, Karoline Swiezynski, Mariët van Bommel, Harry Westerink, Gloria Holwerda- Williams, Maureen Healy, Annette Krauss, Sunil Shah, Zandi Sherman, Clementine Edwards, Ilse Valkering, Nelly Bassily, Pablo Rouwet, Pablo Calderón Salazar, Simone Lagrand, Sume Ndumb-Eyoh, Nydia Dauphin, Doorbraak, Rukariza Ali, Alma Faith Crawford, Suzanne Alleyne, Beylula Yosef, Dr. Mamoudou Sy, Ngouffo Serge, Majesty Sabro, hallie ableman, Edmung Cook, Linda Persson, elisabeth raymond, Sabine Bastiaans, Rachel Somers Miles, Heike Tjepkema, vincent van dijck, Cédric Narbonnais, philippine hoegen, Esther Baar, Petra Kramer, Ellen Schot, Jack Clarke, András Simongáti-Farquhar, Heleen Schols, Maneva Tafanalo Salaam, Tiffany Florvil, Brandy Butler, Yael Harlap, Nadine Botha, Tarek Naguib, Darunee Terdtoontaveedej, Inge de Wit, Marit van Splunter, Betty Wegen, Sophie Rentien Lando, Judith Karg, Jon Sandell, Lih-Lan Wong, Richard Kofi, Hanan de Sain, Youngjae Lih, Alex Charry, Margarita Osipian, Mirjam Westen, Tarim Flach, Rafi Wazir, Alanna Lockward, All the Cunning Stunts, Dineo, Nathalie Hartjes, Rahul Gudipudi, Jonmar van Vlijmen, Alex Sassmannshausen, Minh Tran, Cat Lachowskyj, Sinethemba Twalo, Eleonora Johanna Remmen.

Link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeCz5ep2pGUvQNbuxYyn38aBLrSJy-PzZAjuwht5xPkY- vW_A/viewform